What To Look For In Scriptures (bible)

[Traveler]

I am writing this in response to various discussions concerning the accuracy of scripture. In general LDS often seem to downgrade the Bible as reliable scripture. Some seem to forget that various “fundamental” LDS spin-offs have arisen, not from variant interpretations of the Bible but through variant interpretations of scripture unique to the LDS restoration. From time to time I have even witnessed as groups that claim to be mainstream Christian not only express their interpretations of the Bible variant to LDS understanding but even the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants at they explain to us such scriptures do not say what we understand them to say.

Because of a recent discussion with my friend Dr. T – I thought to express my view of the scriptures and in particular, the Bible. This I would do to help understand the intent and extent of my thoughts in a similar manner to a method often employed by Jesus. That is by a comparison to a universal and common understanding of the marriage relationship. I would compare my relationship to the Bible to the relationship I have to my wife – Mrs. M.

Mrs. M is the love and joy of my life – as is the Bible. It is with her (and because of the Bible) that I have made covenants of love in eternal companionship. I would introduce you to a pleasant wonderful lady and to the Bible. When she was created she was a masterpiece of G-d as was the Bible. She was created in the very image and likeness of G-d as when the scriptures of the Bible were first written they were the pure word of G-d. There are however, two opinions about her and the Bible that are wrong.

The first big silly thought or expression about my wife is that because there have been mistakes in her life following her birth that she is worthless and ought to be discarded. I consider such thought an affront to truth because the idea is so wrong and misleading.

The other thought that is off the silly charts is an attempt to ignore her mistakes and claim that because G-d created her that she is G-d breathed and the very and only expression of G-d’s will. The way she taught and raised her children is more that inspired but the “only” true and right way and anyone that in any way seeks more is an affront to G-d’s word and inspiration. My wonderful wife – the woman of my dreams – the person I trust more than any human, the person to who I give my life and all that I am – is a person of many mistakes. I would not kid you or pretend otherwise. It is possible to be a better wife and mother than she has been. Her mistakes have been costly in our family but that is not the point. The point is that through all her mistakes is a divine light of love that shines and inspires.

I married above myself and I am truly blessed with my wife – but please do not lie and make her something beyond what she is. She is not perfect. She has flaws and she has mistakes but she is still my love and my joy. If you must have a perfect spouse that has no flaws or mistakes or you cannot believe in them that that is your problem. I do not have a problem living with the truth about Mrs. M or the Bible.

The Traveler

[a-train]

Yeah, my wife too.

Seriously, good presentation. I think it well describes the love LDS have for the Old and New Testaments.

Thanks.

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

Interesting parallel, Traveler.

I enjoyed reading that.

[Guest mamacat]

oh my gosh....what delightful excellent things to say about your wife. makes my heart very happy to hear such love. :)

[Dr T]

Hello Traveler,

Thank you for your thoughts and explanation. I really do understand the difficulty in using analogy, as they all eventually break down. The main difficulty however starts with the false analogy of the word of God and humanity. I say this because of the issue of human nature and will that mades God's creation imperfect while the Bible does not have will. As I said on the other thread, there are slight imperfections in the Bible, the imperfections are insignificant and do not change core Christian teachings-that I've discovered yet anyway that cannot rationally be explained. I hope to hear more thoughts on this subject.

[Traveler]

Hello Traveler,

Thank you for your thoughts and explanation. I really do understand the difficulty in using analogy, as they all eventually break down. The main difficulty however starts with the false analogy of the word of God and humanity. I say this because of the issue of human nature and will that mades God's creation imperfect while the Bible does not have will. As I said on the other thread, there are slight imperfections in the Bible, the imperfections are insignificant and do not change core Christian teachings-that I've discovered yet anyway that cannot rationally be explained. I hope to hear more thoughts on this subject.

I am sorry that you feel that the parables and analogies Jesus used in his teachings eventually break down. Perhaps you should explain your understanding of using analogies to him. He is the one that taught me of such things.

BTW - I think you are wrong in thinking that the Bible is a greater and more loved and cared for creation of G-d than is man. I believe that G-d's will is expressed the greater in his value of man and what happens to man over time than what happenes to the Bible over time. I do not say these things to appear smug - but because I know they are true and I really believe that if you search within you - you will find the truth - not as an excuse but as a declaration of what is true and freedom.

BTW Paul said that scriptures must be written on the heart not stone or parchment before we will extract the "core" doctrines without inperfections.

The Traveler

[Dr T]

Hey Traveler,

Please don't get me wrong. I never said that parables and analogies do not have their place. Analogies, where parallels are drawn eventually break down in a point by point comparison. That's what I meant by eventually breaking down.

I agree God loves man-he sent his son to die for us but he also says that the word of the Lord will stand forever. I did not take anything that you have said in this thread as smug sir.

I also agree, it must be written on the heart.

Thank you for your thoughts Traveler

[Traveler]

Hey Traveler,

Please don't get me wrong. I never said that parables and analogies do not have their place. Analogies, where parallels are drawn eventually break down in a point by point comparison. That's what I meant by eventually breaking down.

I agree God loves man-he sent his son to die for us but he also says that the word of the Lord will stand forever. I did not take anything that you have said in this thread as smug sir.

I also agree, it must be written on the heart.

Thank you for your thoughts Traveler

I have thought much about our discussions concerning scriptures, especially the Bible and I am thinking that we will not come to common ground with the direction we are currently headed. So allow me to propose a joining effort. How about you define 2 or 3 of your personally most core doctrines with important supportive scriptures from the Old Testament. I will take these core doctrines of yours with supportive scriptures and we will study together what is written in the various ancient text and explorer the variations and changes imposed on the "core" doctrine(s) of your choice. In fact I will rely - not on LDS scholars but scholars from the leading universities of traditional Christians and Jews. - such as Harvard, Yale, Cambridge and the University of Jerusalem - particularly as these scriptures relate to the discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

My intent is not to try to change your mind about "core" doctrines but to perhaps open your mind to the appreciation the possibilities that come from seeking, asking and knocking. What I would like to change is the thought that the things of G-d should be divided into core things that matter and non core things that man can disregard because they do not matter.

If there is anyone else interested I invite you to join with us. Let us reason together and learn of the methods and economy of G-d in making his will known to man. The first thing I would propose is that the methods and economy are the same today (G-d does not change) as in ancient time. (See Ecclesiastes 1:9-11)

The Traveler

[Dr T]

I love that idea Traveler. That is great. OK, so are you asking for a core Christian belief? Something like this

There is one God, who is without beginning or end, beyond human comprehension yet revealed through His Word, who exists as three unique yet equal persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He is the sole creator of heaven and all the known and unknown universe and all that is within them.

If I understand you correctly, we will look at this issue and see if the dead sea scrolls show something different than this?

[Traveler]

I love that idea Traveler. That is great. OK, so are you asking for a core Christian belief? Something like this

There is one God, who is without beginning or end, beyond human comprehension yet revealed through His Word, who exists as three unique yet equal persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He is the sole creator of heaven and all the known and unknown universe and all that is within them.

If I understand you correctly, we will look at this issue and see if the dead sea scrolls show something different than this?

Actually I was thinking about something more Biblical, direct and specific - like “Messiah”. I would think that the doctrines and teaching of the Messiah in the Old Testament would show how such an important core idea changes over time.

We have Old Testament scriptures that date to the era and time of Jesus that have been untouched for over 2000 years. We can see how core idea like “Messiah” stand up to you insistence that the core doctrines have not changed in the Bible – as Jesus would say even a jot or tiddle. Since the New Testament was written during this same era but we do not have any copies until over a generation later we can use the Old Testament as our reference.

Keep in mind that every reference in the New Testament scriptures (including that the scriptures are the word of G-d) was intended at that time the writers of the New Testament wrote - to mean the Old Testament. We do not have to agree on what we may think Messiah may mean today and thus we can take an honest look into the past and make note of how much the ancient texts vary (or not) on this most important core concept. Not to say one idea or concept is right over another but only to establish weather or not the ancient scriptures used today to create the modern Bible agree with each other, if the modern Bible is a honest representation of any ancient text and if not to what extent there is variance. If we establish that there is a wide variance – perhaps you can explain to me how we should decide which one is the real “word of G-d”. If there are not variances or changes then I will have to explain to you why I have insisted that there really are. That way if we come to another point of doctrine where we disagree – we know which of the ancient text is really the word of G-d and which of us has a better understanding of it. We could use what we learned to settle our difference rather that making emotional and unfounded claims.

So can we agree that “Messiah” is a core doctrine that is not or should not be changed anywhere in “The Word of G-d” – can we agree that “Messiah” is both important (meaning core) and one that is indeed common to all Christians or not?

The Traveler

[Dr T]

If I'm understanding you correctly, we are to look at the concept of "messiah"-the promised and expected deliverer? We are to look at scripture to show that there, in fact, was an expected deliverer outlined in scripture. Right off the bat, I know that Jewish people believed in the coming messiah and they reject Jesus being that messiah. I've talked to Jewish people that say, "Jesus was a great person and teacher" "He was a rabbi but not the messiah." THey go on to say, "If he was, the world would be different than it is now. If he really was, there would be no war, etc." If you are talking about different interpretations, then that is a known and agreed upon issue. If we are going to say that the concept of Messiah has changed in scripture from what we have now, then I'd be happy to look at that. I'm confused about what you are taking about in the "dead sea scrolls" and them changing. Documents from the Q are old manuscripts that have consistent/parallel manuscripts for thousands of years. Maybe I'm misunderstanding. Please proceed with "Messiah" as outlined in the scripture and show me how the old canonized text documents are different. This will be fun.

Thank you Traveler.

[Traveler]

If I'm understanding you correctly, we are to look at the concept of "messiah"-the promised and expected deliverer? We are to look at scripture to show that there, in fact, was an expected deliverer outlined in scripture. Right off the bat, I know that Jewish people believed in the coming messiah and they reject Jesus being that messiah. I've talked to Jewish people that say, "Jesus was a great person and teacher" "He was a rabbi but not the messiah." THey go on to say, "If he was, the world would be different than it is now. If he really was, there would be no war, etc." If you are talking about different interpretations, then that is a known and agreed upon issue. If we are going to say that the concept of Messiah has changed in scripture from what we have now, then I'd be happy to look at that. I'm confused about what you are taking about in the "dead sea scrolls" and them changing. Documents from the Q are old manuscripts that have consistent/parallel manuscripts for thousands of years. Maybe I'm misunderstanding. Please proceed with "Messiah" as outlined in the scripture and show me how the old canonized text documents are different. This will be fun.

Thank you Traveler.

This will be a slow process for me because I am away from my library. Once I can get a few things together we will start looking at ancient text and variations among ancient text. In addition I plan to look at variant readings on the text and finally the variations in modern versions. If there is anyone that reads other languages that can follow and give input to variations resulting from different modern languages that would also be most helpful. I can read some German but that is limited and there is a lot of work done in German - perhaps even more than in English. There are also some Spanish input but for whatever reason Spanish has not published all the much.

Are we agreed that any variation on text containing “Messiah” or in Hebrew “The Anointed one” – would conclusively prove that the Bible is not “The Unchanging Word of G-d” even concerning core principles?

What I think we can demonstrate quite clearly is that if the Bible is to stand alone that there is enough textual variation to demonstrate that unlike G-d the Bible does change over time. But if we consider that the Bible is a brick in the wall of the word of G-d that we have a much better case in demonstrating that there is no variation.

Just a side note: Islam has the orgional text so there is not question about it's status. Also the orgional writtings of Buddah are available as well as other Chineese like Confusius (spelling). It is also interesting to note that Christians save other orgional text of church fathers and others but as for the scriptures there are no New Testament orgionals.

BTW Dr. T. If you would also like to start a textual analysis on singularity or plurality of G-d - we could start a separate thread on that as well. That thread should start with an analysis on the Hebrew term "Ehad". This I know quite well.

The Traveler

[Dr T]

Are we agreed that any variation on text containing “Messiah” or in Hebrew “The Anointed one” – would conclusively prove that the Bible is not “The Unchanging Word of G-d” even concerning core principles?

Before we make that "conclusive" lets see what we come up with. :)

[Traveler]

Are we agreed that any variation on text containing “Messiah” or in Hebrew “The Anointed one” – would conclusively prove that the Bible is not “The Unchanging Word of G-d” even concerning core principles?

Before we make that "conclusive" lets see what we come up with. :)

Jesus said that the "Word of G-d" will stand down to every jot and tiddle. Do you agree with Jesus or no?

The Traveler

[Dr T]

Great question. I'd love to say, Jesus said it so Yes but I know that there have been scribal error-so what do I do with that? Let me think on it some.

[Dr T]

David Guzik has this to say about that passage:

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled."

a. Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets: Jesus here begins a long discussion of the law, and wants to make it clear that He does not oppose the Law of Moses, but He will free it from the way the Pharisees and Scribes wrongly interpreted the law.

b. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill: Jesus wants to make it clear that He has authority apart from the Law of Moses, but not in contradiction to it. Jesus added nothing to the law except one thing that no man had ever added to the law: perfect obedience. This is certainly one way Jesus came to fulfill the law.

i. Even though He often challenged man’s interpretations of the law (especially Sabbath regulations), Jesus never broke the law of God.

c. One jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled: The jot and the tittle were small punctuation marks in Hebrew writing. It is as if Jesus says, "Not one dot of an "i" or not one cross of a "t" will pass away till all is fulfilled. And indeed, Jesus did perfectly fulfill the law.

i. Jesus fulfilled the doctrinal teachings of the law in that He brought full revelation.

ii. Jesus fulfilled the predictive prophecy of the law in that He is the Promised One, showing the reality behind the shadows.

iii. Jesus fulfilled the ethical precepts of the law in that He fully obeyed them and He reinterpreted them in their truth.

[a-train]

Now this would fly in the face of the old notion that a man need not worry about following any law, but he need only believe in the existance of Jesus and he is saved.

There are many who are of the opinion that life has become much easier now with the coming of Christ at the meridian of time. While I have a reason to agree, it is not the reason of disregard for any constraint of lifestyle.

These assume that we need only have a slight movement of mind to do righteousness, a man can simply say 'I confess Jesus' and he is in the narrow path while he can live an outward life of apostasy and sinfulness. It is the idea that the old law looked only at the outward body, but the new covenant looks exclusively at the heart and takes no notice of any exterior expression or action. This belief is congruent with the concept that Christ came to destroy the law and not to fulfill. But, we should all know better.

Jesus said 'thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.' (Mark 12:30) Now how can a man do this with his lips only? This would require far more than a single confession of Jesus' divinity and a return to the service of mammon.

Now we have the Antithesis to the Law as they are called by many scholars, but let us not suppose that appellation designates that those teachings in the Sermon on the Mount could in some manner allow man to shed innocent blood and remain guiltless if he does so without anger or calling the deceased a fool.

Let us not imagine that a man can commit adultery and remain blameless so long as he doesn't lust after the woman in his heart.

Nor do we want to assume that a man can make oaths among the wicked as long as his doing so is only 'Yea, yea'; or 'Nay, nay'.

Let us not think that we can reap the rewards of the plunder of our fellow man and turn a blind eye to injustice when we turn the other cheek.

And, let us not suppose that we can love our neighbors and enemies and only pray for them in our hearts, but withhold our substance and live in gluttony while they starve.

The expression of the Saviour in both word and deed was not that God nor His will nor His mind had changed one whit, but that the understanding of the people must change to the understanding of God.

The Saviour's fulfilling of the Law of Moses did not free men from righteousness, nor loose us from lawfulness, but in His doing He gave us the truth about how to really fulfill the law in our own lives. He showed us the truth that the law of God is not only outward expression, but the total submission of mind and body to God will bring a man into the truth which shall make him free. For, said He, 'If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.' (John 8:31-32) And: 'If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine.' (John 7:17)

I am completely comfortable in believing that the expressions of God in both scripture and by the Holy Spirit directly can give meaning to us as we are capable of receiving, but as we master precepts already extended to us, deeper meaning and truth will be shown to us in the same Word of God. For Jesus did not say that only reading the scriptures will make us aware of the truth, but 'If any man will do His will'.

-a-train

[Dr T]

Thank you for your thoughts a-train. In saying,

...a man can simply say 'I confess Jesus' and he is in the narrow path while he can live an outward life of apostasy and sinfulness.

you repeat a misunderstanding that I have often read on this site. Nobody said, you can live out a life of apostasy and sinfulness because to do so would not, in my opinion, truly have given his life over to Christ. That being said however, I know that God alone is perfect and since I'm not God I am imperfect. I will continue to make mistakes/sin but thanks be to God for Jesus, life, death, and resurrection. For in that, all my sins are paid. It is written, "If you love me you will keep my commandments" (Jn. 14:15) Paraphrasing Paul Should we just sin like crazy then since we're covered? LET IT NEVER BE. :)

[a-train]

Oh Dr. T,

I wasn't saying YOU were promoting the idea of salvation in sin. I am sorry if you thought I was calling you out. I am not picking on you at all. I apologize if I sounded like I was directed at you. I like the comments from David Guzik. There are two very common misconceptions about the Law of Moses in modern Christian (and LDS) circles:

1. We are to totally abandon the Law of Moses in every way, it's precepts are banished.

2. The old law started with Adam, not Moses.

Many have trouble with the idea that Christ's ministry among the Jews was a restoration. 'A restoration of what?' is asked; a restoration of those things taken from the Jews at the time the Law of Moses was given. The Ten Commandments were part of the higher law which was followed by Adam and the prophets before Moses broke the stone tablets of the Decalogue at Sinai.

What is further interesting is that many have called Christ's 'Anithesis to the Law' as such, but a careful look reveals that one of the anithesises he brought was not an antipode to any Law of Moses, but said: 'Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy' (Matt 5:43). This is not in the Law of Moses, but could have been a prevalent doctrine among the Jews at that time.

It is clear that Jesus wanted also to restore truth to those that had accepted such false doctrine. For he wanted 'to make it clear that He does not oppose the Law of Moses, but He will free it from the way the Pharisees and Scribes wrongly interpreted the law.' -David Guzik

-a-train

[Dr T]

Hey a-train,

I didn't take it personally, I've just seen it repeatedly.

In Lev 19:18 we read "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I [am] the LORD." but we do not see the "hate your enemies" piece. Maybe that was the part that the Pharisees were teaching that needed correction.

[a-train]

Exactly. I once heard a Presbyterian minister claim the Essenes had openly taught the hating of enemies, but I haven't had the opportunity to verify that or study it myself. I have also heard the sect wasn't interested in proselytizing, but I wouldn't take that to imply any hatred on their part, think about the great deal of our modern believers from various sects who possess little passion to be missionaries. We don't impute hatred to the 'un'-missionaries for their lack of zeal. Still, the hating of enemies is very prevalent, though unwritten, among the world today.

-a-train

[Dr T]

I read a book called The Shadow of the Galilean by Gerd Theissen it was interesting. It covers a narrative of someone who was in the shadow of Jesus. It covers various political and societal issues in Palestine. A Zealots was invovled. Like I said, it was interesting, you might like it.

Essenes, rulers, etc. Hate is rampant today to be sure.