The Corruption Of Scripture In The Second Century

[Dale]

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/19...nd_Century.html

The evidence is on the side of the Book of Mormon when it say's the Bible was not innerantly transmitted. (1 Nephi 13:20-27) Book of Mormon believers are accused of having a low view of the Bible. I myself feel I have a more realistic view of the Bible. John Gee is an LDS scholar and I thought his article pretty good, and thought I would share it.

[a-train]

"From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of men, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled." -The Prophet Joseph Smith (TOTPJS p. 10-11; D.H.C. 1:245. Feb. 16, 1832)

I think the Dead Sea Scrolls have, as celebrated by even us LDS, shown that little perversion of the text has been accomplished since the 2nd Century. The notion that pollution throughout the translations over the centuries afterward, while not flatly untrue, is now proven to be minimal at best. Clearly however, Joseph Smith didn't make that claim, but as early as Feb. 1832 stated the problems arose "before it was compiled", which unforunately points to those more closely related to the recipients of the original texts. Does that mean Apostasy?

-a-train

[Dr T]

There are convincing scholarly documented material that the Bible is trustworthy. There are often misunderstandings like the "telephone" game idea, etc. There are reams of work that show that 99%+ of the earliest documents that we have are consistent with the later manuscripts that have been found. Just wanted to let those of you that believe only what is put out that tries to show otherwise.

[Dale]

There are scholars that flatly reject the notion that Bible transmission is a minimal propblem. I find Evangelical scholars have a vested interest in supporting Bible preservation. So they have to disagree who disagree with them on the subject.

Critic's of the Book of Mormon attack the Book of Mormon based on changes. I have seen Bible variants that match the type of changes that critic's point to in the Book of Mormon. Bible innerancy if the same standard is equal for the Book of Mormon, and Bible it has been proven by a study of the variants. Once I found out the critic's listed Book of Mormon variants had general type matches in the Bible I discovered the critics were being dumb.

The original of all Bible books are missing. So based on study of copy variants I don't know that no changes took place that effected doctrine.

[Traveler]

"From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of men, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled." -The Prophet Joseph Smith (TOTPJS p. 10-11; D.H.C. 1:245. Feb. 16, 1832)

I think the Dead Sea Scrolls have, as celebrated by even us LDS, shown that little perversion of the text has been accomplished since the 2nd Century. The notion that pollution throughout the translations over the centuries afterward, while not flatly untrue, is now proven to be minimal at best. Clearly however, Joseph Smith didn't make that claim, but as early as Feb. 1832 stated the problems arose "before it was compiled", which unforunately points to those more closely related to the recipients of the original texts. Does that mean Apostasy?

-a-train

I have studied the Dead Sea Scrolls for over 30 years. I have purchased several different copies of all the Biblical translations available from the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as the ancient commentaries. I can personally document many gross errors that exist in the current understanding of the scriptures that have been the engine to modify most modern versions of the Bible. The biggest single effect is to demonstrate that the Masoretic Text used for most of the history of the Bible is the least accurate of the ancient text and Samaritan Text (believed to be the most inaccurate is in truth among the most accurate text). For example the DSS prove that 40 consecutive Hebrew words were lost to all copies of 1 Samuel previously known to modern scriptures. An entire passage lost containing doctrine not known in our day.

Summary – the Dead Sea Scrolls have demonstrated that there were drastic changes to scripture. In fact the DSS demonstrates that there were at least two versions of all scripture maintained at the time of Christ. Since Christ only one version has been maintained. It is currently not known which of the various versions of scriptures should be considered most accurate or the most similar to what was first recorded by the various prophets.

With out doubt much has changed - not only in the text of ancient scripture but in the very understanding (readings and varient readings) of scripture. Yet rather than accept what has happened to change scripture in history; most religious scholars have been busy making excuses rather than recognizing truths.

The Traveler

[Truth in Love]

"We cannot look to scholarship to restore the plain and precious portions of the text that were lost." -John Gee, Ph.D

I read the article hoping to find some specific parts of the Bible which are challenged by Mormons. Am I correct in assuming from the above quote, that Mormons are not sure what parts of the Bible to accept and what parts to reject?

[Princess3dward]

No. They accept anything that was later confirmed by revelation.

They also accept it all as history that actually happened.

[a-train]

I read the article hoping to find some specific parts of the Bible which are challenged by Mormons. Am I correct in assuming from the above quote, that Mormons are not sure what parts of the Bible to accept and what parts to reject?

Actually, Mormons believe the Bible whole-heartedly with very little disagreement with the text.

LDS have an extremely precise system for knowing the proper and original meaning for specific verses that have been damaged. Example:

Paul's vision as recorded in Acts 9:7 tells us his associates "stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man." When Paul recounted the event in Acts 22:9 he says they: "saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me."

Uh, wait a minute Paul did they hear the voice or not? Did Paul not have his story straight? Is the whole book of Acts flawed?

NO!!

Paul was a righteous teacher of the Gospel and the account is true, but there is an obvious flaw in the text we have received. Joseph Smith clarified that Acts 9:7 should read: "And they who were journeying with him saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him who spake to him."

Clarifications such as this are footnoted in LDS editions of the scriptures as well as cross-references throughout the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. Go to the LDS.org website and you can read the Bible right there with all the footnotes in the text.

-a-train

[Dale]

FairWiki.org has an article on Biblical inerrancy. The textual evidence goes against the idea of inerrant transmission. http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Biblical_inerrancy

[a-train]

For example the DSS prove that 40 consecutive Hebrew words were lost to all copies of 1 Samuel previously known to modern scriptures. An entire passage lost containing doctrine not known in our day.

Summary – the Dead Sea Scrolls have demonstrated that there were drastic changes to scripture.

What are the 40 words and what do they say? Are there other examples? Almost everything I seem to find both in the library and online seems to go out of it's way to demonstrate how precise the text is with the current Bible and ALWAYS mentions how differences are nothing more than virtually insignificant. Any websites?

-a-train

BTW, there is a DSS exhibition here in KCMO right now and my wife and I are planning on visiting. A local radio interview with the managers of this show answered many questions about what is here. It's only a small fraction of what was found, but a whole show is built to demonstrate the total find, its history, and implications. The question as to what was different about what was found in the scrolls compared with current Bibles was posted to the panel on the radio and they gave very little example and stated that differences were mainly inconsequential. Where can one see these differences?

[prisonchaplain]

There are scholars that flatly reject the notion that Bible transmission is a minimal propblem. I find Evangelical scholars have a vested interest in supporting Bible preservation. So they have to disagree who disagree with them on the subject.

Since the Bible is one of the Standard Works, I would think that LDS members would also have a vested interest in its overall soundness. This is one topic where I find confusion--we love the Bible, and believe its teachings--but we question its translations, and worry about what has been done to it. I wonder if, sometimes, in order to defend the "as far as it is translated correctly" portion of the Articles of Faith, there is the temptation to overplay the works of skeptics?

The original of all Bible books are missing. So based on study of copy variants I don't know that no changes took place that effected doctrine.

The historic record is quite good, and faith does indeed vest me with the view that God has preserved what He wanted us to have.

[Dale]

I provided a link with an article with quotes from a Bible scholar disagreeing with the popular conclusions. I assume one would have to buy this scholars book, or find his paper.

Another good articles is entitled The Mistakes of Men: Can the scriptures be Error-Free? by John A Tvedtnes.

http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2002TveJ.html

Another good article that gets into many specific accusations of tampering is entitled What The Inspired Version Is at http://www.angelmessage.org/care

40 missing words are 40 missing words. I would be interested in seeing the missing wording myself. That kind of change is what critics complain happened with the Book of Commandments when Joseph Smith revised the revelations in 1835. Rev.22:18,19 promised punishment for untrustworthy copyists. One argument I heard that the Jewish copyists were so faithful that if more than three mistakes were made they would destroy the copy they were making. (Reorganized latter Day Saint Church: Is It Christian? by Carol Hanson pg.69) That's 40 mistakes hardly proving faithful scribes innerantly copying God's pure word. (Proverbs 30:5,6)

[a-train]

Since the Bible is one of the Standard Works, I would think that LDS members would also have a vested interest in its overall soundness. This is one topic where I find confusion--we love the Bible, and believe its teachings--but we question its translations, and worry about what has been done to it. I wonder if, sometimes, in order to defend the "as far as it is translated correctly" portion of the Articles of Faith, there is the temptation to overplay the works of skeptics?

Hear Hear!!! Spoken like a Mormon.

ABSOLUTELY!!!! I think many LDS misunderstand the 'translated correctly' statement and confuse it with the statement that: "they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away. And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men. Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God." (1 Nephi 13:26-28)

So there is more than one issue. The first is that books that were indeed scripture, inspired of God, were not cannonized and are therefore not in our Bibles at all, the second is the translation of what books ARE cannonized and in our Bibles has come into question.

If you study the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, you find relatively few changes and many with only subtle or minor implications. Athough certain areas show serious change, the vast majority of the text was believed by the Prophet to be correct as is. I personally agree.

I think that from the beginning, the greater issue as taught by Joseph Smith and all the LDS Prophets is that of those things which were lost and therefore have not come down to us. We love and cherish the Biblical books that have come down to us, but we acknowledge that they do not contain all of the precepts known and taught by the Apostles of Christ in the primitive Church. This is the very reason a RESTORATION was necessary.

-a-train

[Serg]

I agree. I studied the issue, specially a great book, The Orthodox Corruption os Scripture, etc...though yes, many deliberate mistakes were committed(as well as many unwilled mistakes), in translation, it is a mater of fact that the same willful mistakes happened to the BoM and the same unwilled mistakes also. Please!

I for one dont detest the bible, but love it, I believe that it's accuracy in describing historical contexts may not be 100% good, but hey, its sufficiently accurate and that is why it was intended.

Scripture is not a Divine-human interaction for liability-fraud dynamics, nor for historical fun. It is an exercise of faith and knowledge.

[Dr T]

Translation vs. transliteration should be the first step in understanding. The original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic languages the Bible was written in is what I was talking about comparing.

[Dale]

Interesting thoughts from everyone so far.