As far as it is translated correctly

[phi39]

... was it perdition?, anyway [the 10k 'indulgence'] had helped get him to heaven sooner. That was about 1968 or so. ...

It would have been "purgatory." You'd have to ask a catholic, but I don't think it's supposed to be very much fun.

The antichrist is described as the "son of perdition" (2thess2:3) or "son of destruction," meaning he is destined to be destroyed. there wouldn't be much hope for someone going to perdition/destruction.

A little history I learned recently: indulgences started around the time of the crusades. If you were knight going off on the warpath, you had to pay up front for all the sinning you were going to do for God... I'm sure it made sense to somebody. I think Augustine said that even killing in defensive war is a sin, but a lesser sin than allowing your town to be overrun. Maybe that had something to do with their reasoning. Anyway, the knights went on their merry way and the church made bank.

Later, people started buying indulgences for other things, and it went on till Luther came on the scene, and you know the rest.

[bytebear]

I think there is a misconception that the Book of Mormon (and other LDS Scriptures) is there to "correct" the Bible, or complete the Bible. No, the Bible stands on it's own. Yes, some doctrinal points are elaborated on in the Book of Mormon, but it's purpose is not to "add to the Bible" it is a record of a different people who happened to be under the covenant of Abraham. It would be the same if we found records today in a cave of some other lost tribe, or maybe some additional writings of Peter, Paul or Moses. We would just add them to the recorded dealings of Man and God. True, the Book of Mormon was preserved by the hand of God to come forth in His time, but the idea is the same. It is also the same with the revelations of Joseph Smith. He was just writing down his experiences and revelations like any other prophet. None of that negates the Bible and its purpose.

I wonder how Sola Scripture Christians would feel if new records were found, like the Dead Sea Scrolls, adding to the testimony of the prophets? Well, I kind of know since they tend to reject apocrypha.

[bytor2112]

I think there is a misconception that the Book of Mormon (and other LDS Scriptures) is there to "correct" the Bible, or complete the Bible. No, the Bible stands on it's own. Yes, some doctrinal points are elaborated on in the Book of Mormon, but it's purpose is not to "add to the Bible" it is a record of a different people who happened to be under the covenant of Abraham. It would be the same if we found records today in a cave of some other lost tribe, or maybe some additional writings of Peter, Paul or Moses. We would just add them to the recorded dealings of Man and God. True, the Book of Mormon was preserved by the hand of God to come forth in His time, but the idea is the same. It is also the same with the revelations of Joseph Smith. He was just writing down his experiences and revelations like any other prophet. None of that negates the Bible and its purpose.

I wonder how Sola Scripture Christians would feel if new records were found, like the Dead Sea Scrolls, adding to the testimony of the prophets? Well, I kind of know since they tend to reject apocrypha.

Exactly......

7 Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the cearth beneath; and I bring forth my dword unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?

8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two enations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.

9 And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.

[Darak]

What's your point?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says this about the Bible ...

Official doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says this about the Bible ...

Articles of Faith 1:8

Doctrine and Covenants 42:12

Modern day apostle James E. Talmage says this about the Bible ...

Here is the problem ...

John Mill...

So what does that lead to?

My hope in all this is that a few points will be made clear:

1: The Bible is scripture in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2: The Bible is respected by Mormons

3: "As far as it is translated correctly" is not unreasonable

There have been lots of threads lately about competing ideas between faiths, Prison Chaplin has been an amazing teacher in the ways of non-LDS doctrine. This has lead to several threads about specific teachings (mainly the Trinity) and very intense debate. I just want the position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in regard to the Bible to be communicated and represented correctly.

[MrShorty]

Consider that there are nearly 30,000 manuscripts, that we are discussing 66 books, written by 40 authors, over 1400+ years, and that the number of controversies is razor thin, and I see great sense in trusting that God guided the translation efforts, and that what we have is reliable.

Sorry for another "sometimes I wonder," but sometimes I wonder if, as LDS, we don't appreciate this as much as we should. We will spend time talking about all the "remarkable coincidences" that were part of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, and will assert that these coincidences are evidence that the Book of Mormon is inspired by God. It seems that we spend more time talking about "as far as it is translated correctly" than we spend talking about "We believe the Bible to be the word of God."

When I mentioned this in another string, and suggested that the implication was that the BoM, D&C, and PoGP would all be categorized as superior to and more authoritative than the Bible. I believe someone agreed, saying my suspicion was justified.

There might be some truth to this. As I see it, if this is true, it is similar to the way that Christians in general will say that the New Testament is more authoritative than the Old Testament, and will discount (sometimes too quickly IMO) that something taught in the Old Testament, but not affirmed in the New Testament is "no longer in force." and of "historical interest" only.

[mnn727]

2 Timothy 3:16

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

All scripture, includes the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenanats and Pearl of Great Price.

----

I believe the poster was actually saying the definition of God Breathed is not what many Protestants believe,

[prisonchaplain]

If "God-breathed" does not mean what most of us Protestants think it means (i.e. What does it mean that the Bible is inspired?), then what does it mean?

[Guest gopecon]

We DO BELIEVE that the Bible was inspired (God breathed) as it was originally penned. As it stands today it is still a very reliable source for us to find God's will and come closer to Him. I think the problem with the verse 2 Tim 3:16 is that it leaves open the question as to what constitutes scripture. Some will use that verse to argue against the LDS scriptures (BofM, D&C, PofGP). Just because something is in the Bible many assume it to be scripture - but some doubt how inspired Song of Solomon and some Psalms are. Even for things directly from prophets, with each translation it is possible for well-meaning people to get farther and farther away from the original intent of the author.

Phi39 - we believe the Bible to be the word of God, but we don't believe it is the only word of God. We also acknowledge that the Bible is subject to a variety of different interpretations. Having additional scripture as we do helps to clarify some issues that the Bible does not clearly address. Many Protestants who adhere to sola scriptura see the Bible as the only source of doctrine. This leads to the idea that if something is not in the Bible, it's can't be true.

[MrShorty]

Would I be right to say then that you do believe the Bible to be the word of God, but not in the same way as evangelicals? How does that play out practically?

Skimming through the Chicago statement you referenced, I would say that I am comfortable with everything state, with one notable exception. Article V states, in part that "We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings." For obvious reasons, Mormons can't really agree with this statement.

Another difference that I previously mentioned is the concept of sola scriptura. Where Evangelicals/Protestants hold very tightly to this concept, LDS do not.

Not to sidetrack the discussion, but there was one thing I found interesting in the Chicago Statement. Article XVII sounds an awful lot to me like Moroni 10:3-5. I have heard a few anti-mormons absolutely mock the idea of a Spiritual witness for scripture (specifically the BoM) that we LDS claim as part of our reason for accepting the BoM. I guess I find it interesting to see Evangilicals affirm that the Spirit can and does bear witness to scripture.

[Dravin]

If "God-breathed" does not mean what most of us Protestants think it means (i.e. What does it mean that the Bible is inspired?), then what does it mean?

Generally in my discussions I've had with other Christians who used that phrase I came away with a sense of it being a means to say the Bible is devoid of any error, ether in selection, translation, or editing. Furthermore because it is "God-breathed" it wouldn't even be possible. It puts a protective bubble around the Bible that from the LDS perspective is way beyond how most of us would render the scripture, "all scripture is inspired", which doesn't carry with it the aforementioned implications that "God-breathed" does.

Now this perception may very well only describe a (possibly small) portion of mainstream Christians, but it's probably the concept that Justice (and others) think of when they hear the phrase used. It's possible it is being brought up in defense of the Bible as the only canon and various issues are getting commingled. Much like how if I said you are wrong because, the theory of snoozle states X, and Y. One can come away thinking the theory of snoozle states X and Y, instead of you being wrong because the theory of snoozle says x, and furthermore, completely separate from the theory of snoozle, because of Y.

Edited October 26, 2011 by Dravin

[Justice]

Generally in my discussions I've had with other Christians who used that phrase I came away with a sense of it being a means to say the Bible is devoid of any error, ether in selection, translation, or editing.

I have the same impression, not only because that's what it sounded like they said, but after I asked, it is in fact exactly how they explained it. It was said," if historians find any mistakes, then the older versions are in error and the newer version was what God intended us to have, right up to the KJV and beyond."

It was very clear, and is why the NIV version of the verse that uses "God breathed" is a clear attempt by a translator to force the Bible to claim it is mistake free, and a blatant attempt to alter the words to mean something different; something that the individual believed. That's the travesty of it all. That's deplorable, and I believe people who changed the Bible to make it say what they believed will be held accountable.

I agree with early Christian writer who said "knave! leave it alone!" Let the reader decide!

[Justice]

Now, for something interesting...

I searched for "one God" in the LDS standard works (which includes the KJV), and these are some of the hits in the Book of Mormon:

Mosiah 15:4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

Mosiah 15:5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.

Alma 33:1 Now after Alma had spoken these words, they sent forth unto him desiring to know whether they should believe in one God, that they might obtain this fruit of which he had spoken, or how they should plant the seed, or the word of which he had spoken, which he said must be planted in their hearts; or in what manner they should begin to exercise their faith.

1 Nephi 13:41 And they must come according to the words which shall be established by the mouth of the Lamb; and the words of the Lamb shall be made known in the records of thy seed, as well as in the records of the twelve apostles of the Lamb; wherefore they both shall be established in one; for there is one God and one Shepherd over all the earth.

2 Nephi 31:21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

Mormon 7:7 And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end.

2 hits in the Old Testament, 6 in the New... 10 in the Book of Mormon.

So, as has been said, it may not be the translation we're pointing a finger at, but more the transmission, or interpretaiton or understanding of the words.

[prisonchaplain]

Generally in my discussions I've had with other Christians who used that phrase I came away with a sense of it being a means to say the Bible is devoid of any error, ether in selection, translation, or editing. Furthermore because it is "God-breathed" it wouldn't even be possible. It puts a protective bubble around the Bible that from the LDS perspective is way beyond how most of us would render the scripture, "all scripture is inspired", which doesn't carry with it the aforementioned implications that "God-breathed" does.

"God-breated" is a more literal rendering of the Greek, if I'm not mistaken. You probably hear the phrase used simply because that is how the New International Version translates it. The doctrine of the Bible as God's Word has not shifted because we've moved towards the NIV. When I was growing up, I memorized the KJV "All scripture is inspired..." and felt the same way about it. The Bible has no mistakes, and our translations have none worth fussing about.

[Justice]

PC, many Christian churches believe you don't have to be baptized to be "saved."

The Book of Mormon teahces that you do, and not only that, but it has to be by immersion, and by one holding the Priesthood of God.

I see the Book of Mormon clarifying the Bible.

Now, if the Book of Mormon is right, then it IS worth fussing about!

[mnn727]

The Bible has no mistakes, and our translations have none worth fussing about.

No mistakes? none at all?

Did you really mean to say that?

Edited October 26, 2011 by mnn727

[prisonchaplain]

Now, if the Book of Mormon is right, then it IS worth fussing about!

It depends on what "it" is. I thought the "it" we were talking about is how reliable the Bible is. Whether the BoM is modern revelation from God would have little impact on whether the Bible is inspired/God-breathed, and can be studied without hesitation, or whether we should take it with a grain of salt because the level of translation/transmission errors is probably significant.

[Seminarysnoozer]

"Translated correctly" is a big deal. We've seen many discussions on this forum over one or two words that have various meanings. Even translating the word from one language to another would have to be inspired as well to maintain its true meaning.

If you have ever translated something from one language to another, you can easily see how the meaning can be altered. For example, in English we can say, "that doesn't work", well is "work" in this case, function or occupation type work. In Portuguese, a person could say "that doesn't give" to say the same thing (nao da) which does not make much sense in English as a direct translation. So, the translation also has to be done correctly and could end up leaning towards a definition that was not intended, unless the translators are also "God-breathed".

[prisonchaplain]

No mistakes? none at all?

Did you really mean to say that?

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?

[prisonchaplain]

"Translated correctly" is a big deal. We've seen many discussions on this forum over one or two words that have various meanings. Even translating the word from one language to another would have to be inspired as well to maintain its true meaning.

If you have ever translated something from one language to another, you can easily see how the meaning can be altered. For example, in English we can say, "that doesn't work", well is "work" in this case, function or occupation type work. In Portuguese, a person could say "that doesn't give" to say the same thing (nao da) which does not make much sense in English as a direct translation. So, the translation also has to be done correctly and could end up leaning towards a definition that was not intended, unless the translators are also "God-breathed".

What you say just ain't so. We do not, as Muslims do (by insisting that Muslims learn Arabic to understand the Quran), demand that all Christians learn Greek and Hebrew, to study the real Bible--while translations are only "the meaning of." We do believe that Bible translations are directed by God, and that when we study them we study God's word.

Would you really have us be so uncertain of scripture that we simply rely on what the church leaders say instead? Or, do you mean to imply that realistically, LDS would do better to just study the Triple, since the Bible is translated and transmitted with so many errors that we really do not know what's what???

Edited October 26, 2011 by prisonchaplain

[annewandering]

What you say just ain't so. We do not, as Muslims do (by insisting that Muslims learn Arabic to understand the Quran), demand that all Christians learn Greek and Hebrew, to study the real Bible--while translations are only "the meaning of." We do believe that Bible translations are directed by God, and that when we study them we study God's word.

Would you really have us be so uncertain of scripture that we simply rely on what the church leaders say instead? Or, do you mean to imply that realistically, LDS would do better to just study the Triple, since the Bible is translated and transmitted with so many errors that we really do not know what's what???

With all the questioning done lately I admit I sometimes wonder if we should but no. The Bible is Scripture. If we have questions we can always resort to prayer to ask for confirmation on any issue. Cant really beat the Scripture coupled with prayer can we?

[volgadon]

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?

God reveals himself to a prophet in order to convey a message to man. He tailors the content and form to our finite and fallible understanding. This tailoring includes the prophet who conveys the message received during his encounter with God.

[volgadon]

Would you really have us be so uncertain of scripture that we simply rely on what the church leaders say instead? Or, do you mean to imply that realistically, LDS would do better to just study the Triple, since the Bible is translated and transmitted with so many errors that we really do not know what's what???

We don't rely exclusively on either.

[Seminarysnoozer]

What you say just ain't so. We do not, as Muslims do (by insisting that Muslims learn Arabic to understand the Quran), demand that all Christians learn Greek and Hebrew, to study the real Bible--while translations are only "the meaning of." We do believe that Bible translations are directed by God, and that when we study them we study God's word.

Would you really have us be so uncertain of scripture that we simply rely on what the church leaders say instead? Or, do you mean to imply that realistically, LDS would do better to just study the Triple, since the Bible is translated and transmitted with so many errors that we really do not know what's what???

I believe the Bible to be the word of God. But I also believe that after studying and pondering it there is an amount of personal translation that has to take place to fully understand it and appreciate the intent of the meaning.

For example, the Greek word for perfect as is in Matthew 5:48 can also mean, "completeness, maturity, and full development". Using that description of perfect may change how a person lives what is said there. But if we didn't have the understanding of the Greek word and just left it in English or German or whatever else it was (I don't know these things) then it would convey a different meaning. Perfect would be perfect, nothing else, i.e. - flawless, never make a mistake.

As in most of our conversations with you, I think that when we say "translated correctly" there is a perception that everything else is 'incorrect' when what that could mean is the things that are not "translated correctly" are incomplete. It could still be true and good but incomplete and be not "translated correctly". I don't think those words have to be taken as an all or nothing statement, just something better, more informative.

When you teach a lesson (I am assuming you do) do you expound on the word or do you just read the Bible word for word? Have you not had to explain the meaning of a scripture to someone? Why would you have to explain it if it is all there? The interpreter's words would be better than Gods direct word to convey the meaning?

[Justice]

It depends on what "it" is. I thought the "it" we were talking about is how reliable the Bible is. Whether the BoM is modern revelation from God would have little impact on whether the Bible is inspired/God-breathed, and can be studied without hesitation, or whether we should take it with a grain of salt because the level of translation/transmission errors is probably significant.

Again, PC, if the Bible teaches you don't have to be baptized to be "saved," and the Book of Mormon teaches that you do, then one is right and one is wrong.

Assuming the Book of Mormon is right and you have to be baptized to be "saved," then those people who don't get baptized because they misunderstood the Bible are in danger.

That interpretation of the Bible cannot save you. I believe the Bible used to be more clear about being baptized by immersion. It's very obvious that there was motive to change it.

So, how reliable the Bible is all depends on how well one interprets truth from it. If the texts had been changed to sway readers to a certain person's view, that's not very reliable.

So, the Bible teaches that Jesus is the Christ, and can lead a man to God, but he has to understand that ordinances (where covenants are made) are necessary. If one reads the Bible and does not participate in ordinances because of the way he interprets it, then it's not the Bible that's faulty, but the interpretation.

The text should have been left alone for all to see it clearly, then all would be baptized by immersion, and we wouldn't need to turn to the Book of Mormon for the definitive answer.

[prisonchaplain]

Again, PC, if the Bible teaches you don't have to be baptized to be "saved," and the Book of Mormon teaches that you do, then one is right and one is wrong.

This one is pretty easy. 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. So, if I accepted the BoM as scripture, and it spelled out the necessity of an authorized water baptism before the church should embrace one as a convert, then the BoM's affirmation would certainly clarify the Bible's silence.