As far as it is translated correctly

[Justice]

The Bible, in the view of folks like myself, does not state that baptism is a prerequisite of conversion. It is silent on the matter.

I searched for baptism in the New Testament and it came back with 60 hits. Here are a few of them:

John 3: 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

John 3:23 And John also was baptizing in Ænon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.

Luke 3:21 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,

Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

John 4:1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,

Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Silent? Hardly. I'll buy misinterpreted, but silent? As if these few quotes weren't enough evidence...

Here is one hit where people refused to be baptized and look how it talks about them, and the specific reason how people could know that they rejected the word of God:

Luke 7:30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.

Again, PC, hardly silent... just misinterpreted, quite possibly (more than likely) due to changes to the text.

So, again, if a person does not get baptized because he believes the Bible teaches he does not have to, but in reality he does, where does that leave that man? Is it important? Would that be worth fussing about?

It is critical, even necessary, to get the word of God right. That a man would make a change to a text simply because he disagrees is deplorable. That it was done is indisputable.

[prisonchaplain]

Justice...I'd hate to derail this thread into a discussion of water baptism. Of course the NT is full of references to water baptism. What is not so clear is that it is a prerequisite of conversion. Keep in mind also, that there are really three views here:

"Believer's Baptism" - that baptism is an ordinance for one who has converted, or has made a public proclamation of their faith in Christ. It is one of the first acts of obedience a new believer partakes in.

"Infant baptism" - baptism saves. The soul that is not baptized cannot be redeemed. This is why churches will follow up with "Confirmation," when the child is old enough to CONFIRM the baptism for him/herself.

Then there is the LDS baptism, which is a prerequisite of sorts, since children under 8 are not believed to need it.

We could then discuss the form baptism takes, as you suggest. Is immersion required. Should the baptism be done in Jesus' name, or in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Some churches dip the person three times. Some insist that the phrase "For the remission of sins" be included, since they believe it is baptism that washes sins away.

So, sure, the Bible is not silent about baptism. I only intended to say that there is no smoking gun verse that says, "Thou shalt baptize before/after repentence, etc."

Additionally, I would suggest that your implication that the Bible translations are rife with editorial additions meant to skew readers towards one doctrine or another is rather overblown--especially when we have roughly 30,000 manuscripts to compare now.

[mnn727]

The Bible has no mistakes. As I said in the post, our translations have none worth fussing about. Find me the original manuscripts to the Bible, and if it is truly God-breathed/inspired, do you suppose he included error?

I don't believe they were "God Breathed" in the sense you do.

Men wrote the Bible, Inspired men in many cases, but just men with their own world view, prejudices, etc.

man also picked out which books are included in the Bible and that has changed a number of times in the last 200 years.

God only wrote 2 things and one of those is not recorded what was written (just that it was) and the other things (the 10 Commandments) most Protestants say we don't need topay attention to anymore -- kinda sad to my way of thinking - the only thing we have that God Himself wrote and most people just toss it by the wayside.

I understand from the Protestant viewpoint the Bible is their only claim to authority, but its such a shaky claim when you really study the Bibles history.

[prisonchaplain]

I sometimes find it confusing to reconcile posts like these last few, with the more common LDS defense of the Bible as one of the Standard Works, as one that the Triple compliments, as one that is revered despite potential difficulties with translation.

I discovered this: I Have a Question - Ensign July 1985 - ensign

which also speaks of the high regard LDS leaders, and the Church officially, have for the Bible.

And yet, this other current...to critically regard, to almost undermine, the Bible's sway over Protestants, in particular.

[Traveler]

I sometimes find it confusing to reconcile posts like these last few, with the more common LDS defense of the Bible as one of the Standard Works, as one that the Triple compliments, as one that is revered despite potential difficulties with translation.

I discovered this: I Have a Question - Ensign July 1985 - ensign

which also speaks of the high regard LDS leaders, and the Church officially, have for the Bible.

And yet, this other current...to critically regard, to almost undermine, the Bible's sway over Protestants, in particular.

Let’s keep in mind that we are talking about the Bible. Not necessarily the same scriptures or even the same version of scriptures use anciently by the Jews, Jesus and the Christians contemporary to Jesus, such as Peter, James, Paul and others. In your earlier discussion of water baptism you have left out a very important principle - a principle that if not understood, water baptism cannot be properly understood, especially the very necessary water baptism of Jesus. The principle of which I speak is covenant with G-d.

In essence the principals of covenant are most prevalent in the water baptism of Jesus. Because a covenant with G-d must include G-d or a commissioned proxy stand in for G-d - the person standing in for G-d must receive a commission through G-d to perform the Baptism. I have yet to meat a “Protestant” that believes in or understands legal proxy commission to perform anything associated with a “Kingdom” - including the Kingdom of G-d.

John the Baptist, who was commissioned properly, understood exactly how a baptism was to be used and done. This commission did not come from scriptural understanding or from other combinations of scripture and tradition as referenced by the Pharisees and Scribes - which did not believe or teach water baptism as a covenant with G-d as anything necessary for salvation. But as we find in scripture; not one individual that refused the water baptism of John as being a necessary covenant with G-d was able to spiritually recognize the Christ - not one. John truly was sent to prepare the way. That preparation was water baptism as a covenant.

One of the criticisms of “Mormons” is that we do not recognize water baptisms of other Christian sects. Often this criticism takes the form that “Mormons” are not Christian and worship a “different” Christ. Despite our differences - I would point out that the more the Bible has come into use to define what is necessary for salvation the more confusion Christians have been concerning the subject. Indeed it has even been a major contribution of war between “Christians”.

My point here is that man, regardless of all his learning and devices cannot translate or interpret scripture properly - thus the many divisions and sects of Christianity. The only “way” to interpret or translate scripture is therefore via restoration through G-d. Without acceptance of a restoration and the commissioning of proxy in ordinance preparing a way: there cannot be any more understanding and recognition of Christ than was evident 2000 years ago.

The Traveler

Edited October 27, 2011 by Traveler

[Justice]

It only sounds like it because we have to counter "it is God-breathed" and therefore perfect and error free. Any stance that contends there are mistakes would sound critical.

The Bible is the word of God, but that does not mean it has to be perfect. This is the belief I see that I try to refute. In order to oppose the view that the Bible is perfect, it is necessary to point out mistakes.

As I point out mistakes, by nature it comes across as critical.

I think the part that makes it seem I am being very critical of the Bible text itself is the fact that much of the "error" in the Bible is the misinterpretations and false doctrines that people read into it.

I think by pointing out mistakes to the text itself, it is easier to point out how it might have been misinterpreted. So, maybe I am being overly critical of the text itself, when I intend to be more critical of the interpretations. But, since you cannot show someone where they have misinterpreted something, it is easier to first address the textual errors, hoping it may lead to the interpretation errors.

[Justice]

And, by the way, the word baptize is taken from the Greek word that literally meant "to immerse in water." The mode is only questioned because of interpretation and a lack of understanding of how all can be baptized, even if they weren't while alive.

[Traveler]

It only sounds like it because we have to counter "it is God-breathed" and therefore perfect and error free. Any stance that contends there are mistakes would sound critical.

The Bible is the word of God, but that does not mean it has to be perfect. This is the belief I see that I try to refute. In order to oppose the view that the Bible is perfect, it is necessary to point out mistakes.

As I point out mistakes, by nature it comes across as critical.

I think the part that makes it seem I am being very critical of the Bible text itself is the fact that much of the "error" in the Bible is the misinterpretations and false doctrines that people read into it.

I think by pointing out mistakes to the text itself, it is easier to point out how it might have been misinterpreted. So, maybe I am being overly critical of the text itself, when I intend to be more critical of the interpretations. But, since you cannot show someone where they have misinterpreted something, it is easier to first address the textual errors, hoping it may lead to the interpretation errors.

I understand the scriptures to be symbolic of truths - not the truths themselves. Thus the symbols can be flawed and still the truth can be understood. The problem is that often the symbols become more important than the truths they teach. This was evident anciently with the serpent Moses put on a poll and it is also evident with the Bible today. I agree when the Bible becomes “G-d breathed” that the sacredness of what the symbols represent are being trashed for and replaced by the symbols.

When the symbols of creation in Genesis become more important than the reality of physics - the truth of the scriptural symbolic message is lost in the denial of reality. It is true that this freedom in belief can create many interpertations - but it is in "translating" our interpertations to living reality that we come to know the truths in scripture.

The Traveler

[Dravin]

I sometimes find it confusing to reconcile posts like these last few, with the more common LDS defense of the Bible as one of the Standard Works, as one that the Triple compliments, as one that is revered despite potential difficulties with translation.

I discovered this: I Have a Question - Ensign July 1985 - ensign

which also speaks of the high regard LDS leaders, and the Church officially, have for the Bible.

And yet, this other current...to critically regard, to almost undermine, the Bible's sway over Protestants, in particular.

The goal isn't to undermine the Bible's sway over Protestants, it's to highlight that we don't give scripture an aura of infallibility (and by extension don't think others should either). For you it's inconceivable that we think the Bible has confused or missing critical doctrines, that critical works could have been left out in the selection process, or that it's possible for plain and precious truths to be removed from it. For us it isn't, and it doesn't make it a useless book because of those facts, it makes it a valued but incomplete volume of scripture that has taken some knocks along the way.

From the LDS perspective we see the rust, the missing hubcap and the torn upholstery in what is a solid dependable car, but then a Protestant comes along and declares the car has no wear and tear, that it is as new as the day it left the factory except for maybe a few dents in the bumper, and the LDS flabbergasted points out the rust, the missing hubcaps, and the torn upholstery. The Protestant in turn hears these counter points and thinks the LDS thinks the car is a complete and utter piece of crap, why does he even claim it as one of his?

I do think though, that in the effort of noting the rust and dents* some LDS get a little carried away in making their case. It's almost like the 'extremism' of the Protestant perspective (from the LDS view of things) is conjuring up an equal and opposite 'extremism' to counter it. So I completely understand how some of the comments you hear just don't seem to jive with the idea of someone who appreciates the Bible. I think people in the effort to 'win' lose track of how they sound

*Or in line with the misinterpretation method of loss, that someone has been putting in the wrong fuel.

Edited October 29, 2011 by Dravin

[prisonchaplain]

I'm more concerned with the implication that redactors added signficant doctrinal commentary to the Scriptures, and the idea that since we do not have the original mauscripts, we are SIGNIFICANTLY uncertain as to the Bible's reliability.

My perception is that most evangelical churches have left the whole discussion of "perfect" aside, prefering to state the Bible's reliablity, it's authority, and that God's Word will remain forever. The scriptures are "God-breathed," but very few would deny that translations might have minor errors, and that even printers could include typos.

I am also disconcerted by the idea that truths were lost, or intentionally left out...but I find that far easier to understand, coming from LDS, due to your added scriptures and having the church office of prophet alive and in practice.

[annewandering]

I'm more concerned with the implication that redactors added signficant doctrinal commentary to the Scriptures, and the idea that since we do not have the original mauscripts, we are SIGNIFICANTLY uncertain as to the Bible's reliability.

My perception is that most evangelical churches have left the whole discussion of "perfect" aside, prefering to state the Bible's reliablity, it's authority, and that God's Word will remain forever. The scriptures are "God-breathed," but very few would deny that translations might have minor errors, and that even printers could include typos.

I am also disconcerted by the idea that truths were lost, or intentionally left out...but I find that far easier to understand, coming from LDS, due to your added scriptures and having the church office of prophet alive and in practice.

Ya its very nice having a prophet. :) It helped a lot in Bible times too but sadly a lot of them got stoned for saying the truth.

[volgadon]

Additionally, I would suggest that your implication that the Bible translations are rife with editorial additions meant to skew readers towards one doctrine or another is rather overblown--especially when we have roughly 30,000 manuscripts to compare now.

Far more pertinent to the discussion is what number of those manuscripts are late and what number are all from the same textual family. 30,000 isn't terribly impressive once we see how many are late descendants of only a few manuscript groups.

[Justice]

Far more pertinent to the discussion is what number of those manuscripts are late and what number are all from the same textual family. 30,000 isn't terribly impressive once we see how many are late descendants of only a few manuscript groups.

Can you post more info, or provide a link where you get your information? I am having a discussion with a friend at work about the coming forth of the Bible. I'm trying to get him to watch the new BYU produced documentary series Fires of Faith. But, I'd love to read more of this info.

[Traveler]

I'm more concerned with the implication that redactors added signficant doctrinal commentary to the Scriptures, and the idea that since we do not have the original mauscripts, we are SIGNIFICANTLY uncertain as to the Bible's reliability.

My perception is that most evangelical churches have left the whole discussion of "perfect" aside, prefering to state the Bible's reliablity, it's authority, and that God's Word will remain forever. The scriptures are "God-breathed," but very few would deny that translations might have minor errors, and that even printers could include typos.

I am also disconcerted by the idea that truths were lost, or intentionally left out...but I find that far easier to understand, coming from LDS, due to your added scriptures and having the church office of prophet alive and in practice.

From my thinking the idea that something is missing is very important in one’s quest for truth and faith. Thus the quest becomes and remains a journey rather than a destination. It is never about “THE ANSWER” but having found an answer we still continue our quest because each answer in truth generates a thousand new questions.

It seems to me the fault of many Christians is that they have arrived and no longer have to make any effort to stretch or learn. I believe this creates complacency and a stagnation of spiritual growth. It is kind of like the rich young man that honestly wondered “what lack I” did not want the answer because it involved even more seeking and learning. This constant reaching I believe to be both important and necessary. It is the single greatest criticism I have of many other LDS - the idea that they have “The Answer” and need nothing more.

I very much like the idea that there is no all encompassing repository of knowledge that is needed. I honestly believe that the scriptures are not complete by divine design. This mirrors Isaiah’s admonition of “line upon line upon line - precept upon precept upon precept.

I believe we should always respect as new any truth we may encounter and if G-d grants us greater insights - like Mary we may ponder such things to our self not always pronouncing such things public but allow others to learn and ponder enlightenment. Indeed a know-it-all is not just annoying but they are wrong and an impediment to all diligently wasting themselves on the path and journey to truth.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Can you post more info, or provide a link where you get your information? I am having a discussion with a friend at work about the coming forth of the Bible. I'm trying to get him to watch the new BYU produced documentary series Fires of Faith. But, I'd love to read more of this info.

Here is a partial list of some of the family of ancient Biblical text:

Aquila's recension of the Septuagint

Codex Alexandrinus

Ethiopic Version

Ambrose's ciation of the Latin

Arbic Version

Armenian Version

Babylonian Talmud

Codex Vaticanus

Bohairic Version

Masoretic Text

Greek Text

Septuagint

Origen's recension

Lucianic Greek Text

Palestianian or kaige recension of the Greek text

Josephus text of Jewish Antiquites

Latin

Mishnah

Old Greek

Syriac Version of Philoxenus

Qumran

Syriac Version

Samaritan

Syro-Hexaplar version

Targum

Palestinian Targum

Latin Vulgate

As far as textual accuracy for much of Christian history the Masoretic Text was considered the most accurate of textual families. However the advent of the Dead Sea Scripture has shown the even the much maligned Samaritan is actually more accurate than the tradition Masoretic Text -

The Traveler

[volgadon]

Can you post more info, or provide a link where you get your information? I am having a discussion with a friend at work about the coming forth of the Bible. I'm trying to get him to watch the new BYU produced documentary series Fires of Faith. But, I'd love to read more of this info.

I used to debate this with evangelical anti-Mormons on facebook.

Usually I'm not terribly keen on posting wikipedia links, but these have useful charts. Biblical manuscript - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Categories of New Testament manuscripts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is a nice introduction. Textual Criticism

I'll post my other resources as I come across them.

[volgadon]

Babylonian Talmud

Mishnah

Syriac Version

Targum

Palestinian Targum

Umm, no, these aren't families of ancient Biblical texts.

The Mishnah is a codification of the Jewish oral law containing very few biblical quotes. The talmuds are discussions of the Mishnah.

The other three examples you've provided are paraphrases on the Bible.

What I meant by families are groups of manuscripts showing a clear relationship to each other.

However the advent of the Dead Sea Scripture has shown the even the much maligned Samaritan is actually more accurate than the tradition Masoretic Text

What has been shown is that the Samaritan Pentateuch is an example of the late Palestinian type out of which the Masoretic grew as well.

[Snow]

I am also disconcerted by the idea that truths were lost, or intentionally left out...but I find that far easier to understand, coming from LDS, due to your added scriptures and having the church office of prophet alive and in practice.

Ultimately, they are all "added" scriptures. They (the books of the NT) had to be added the the scriptural collection at some point.

Interestingly, one of the criteria that was originally required for scriptural status - apostolic origen, turns out to have not been true of many, perhaps most of the books of the NT.

[Snow]

2 Timothy 3:16

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, (NIV)

It's worth noting that in the view of practically all or all credible NT scholars, the person that wrote that was engaged in a deception by pretending to be Paul.

Besides which, it says nothing about what constitutes scripture... and for that matter, I'd not sure what the author, not Paul, meant by "God-breathed."

Edited October 28, 2011 by Snow