Contradictions Between the Book of Mormon and the Bible

There are many serious objections to the claim of Joseph Smith and the LDS church that the Book of Mormon is divinely inspired latter-day scripture supplemental to the Bible. However, none are more significant than the numerous contradictions between Book of Mormon teaching and the Bible. This list is illustrative only, not exhaustive.

1. The Book of Mormon teaches that little children are not capable of sin because they do not have a sinful nature (Moroni 8:8). In contrast, the Bible in Psalm 51:5 clearly teaches that we have sinful nature from birth: "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me" (NIV). (This does not mean that those who die in infancy are lost.*)

2. The Book of Mormon teaches that the disobedience of Adam and Eve in eating the forbidden fruit was necessary so that they could have children and bring joy to mankind (2 Nephi 2:23-25). In contrast, the Bible specifically declares that Adam’s transgression was a sinful act of rebellion that unleashed the power of sin and death in the human heart and throughout God’s perfect world (Genesis 3:16-19; Romans 5:12; 8:20-21). There is no Biblical support for the view that Adam and Eve could only fulfill the command to "be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28) by disobeying God’s command regarding the forbidden fruit (Genesis 2:17). The Book of Mormon teaching that these divine commands are contradictory, and that God expected Adam and Eve to figure out that in reality He wanted them to break the latter command ("of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it") in order to keep the former ("be fruitful and multiply"), has no basis in logic or the Biblical text, and attributes equivocation to God.

3. The Book of Mormon teaches that black skin is a sign of God’s curse, so that white-skinned people are considered morally and spiritually superior to black skinned people (2 Nephi 5:21). In contrast, the Bible teaches that God "made of one blood all nations of men" (Acts 17:26, KJV), that in Christ distinctions of ethnicity, gender and social class are erased (Galatians 3:28), and that God condemns favoritism (James 2:1).

4. The Book of Mormon teaches that, "it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do" (2 Nephi 25:23; see also Moroni 10:32). In contrast, the Bible teaches that apart from Christ we are dead in sin (Ephesians 2:1,5) and unable to do anything to merit forgiveness and eternal life. Salvation is wholly of grace (Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 11:6; Titus 3:5-6), not by grace plus works. Good works are a result, not the basis, of a right relationship with God (Ephesians 2:10).

5. According to the Book of Mormon, about 600 years before Christ, a Nephite prophet predicted that "many plain and precious parts" (1 Nephi 13:26-28) would be removed from the Bible. In contrast, from the Bible it is clear that during His earthly ministry, Jesus himself constantly quoted from the Old Testament Scriptures, and showed full confidence in their completeness and accurate transmission as they had survived down to His time. Jesus declared that "heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away" (Mark 13:31; see also Matthew 5:18), and promised His disciples who were to pen the New Testament that the Holy Ghost "shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you" (John 14:26); Jesus further promised the apostles that they would "bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain" (John 15:16). These promises clearly imply that the fruit of the apostles — the New Testament Scriptures and the Christian church — would endure.

6. According to a Book of Mormon prophecy (Helaman 14:27), at the time of Christ’s crucifixion "darkness should cover the face of the whole earth for the space of three days." In contrast, the New Testament gospel accounts declare repeatedly that there was darkness for only three hours while Jesus was on the cross (Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44).

An earlier prophecy in 1 Nephi 19:10 implies the three days of darkness will be more than regional in scope for it says this sign will be "unto those who inhabit the isles of the sea, more especially given unto those who are of the house of Israel." The darkness then would extend over the ocean to the islands and reach as far as Israel in the Middle East.

Book of Mormon references to the fulfillment of this prophecy, however, use wording that could be understood to mean the three days of darkness was only in the Americas, stating that the three days of darkness would be "over the face of the land." (3 Nephi 8:3ff; 10:9). This appears to be the position of the late Mormon General Authority B.H. Roberts in his book Studies of the Book of Mormon, p. 292). If this is the case, then this would resolve the apparent contradiction between the Bible and the Book of Mormon regarding what happened at the time of Christ's death, for we would have 3 hours of darkness in Israel and 3 days of darkness on the American continents. However, this would make the earlier prophecies of 1 Nephi and Helaman internally contradictory with later BOM references, since their phrasing of "the isles of the sea ... those who are of the house of Israel" and "the whole face of the whole earth" is difficult to understand as merely a localized time of darkness.

7. The Book of Mormon people are said to have observed "all things according to the law of Moses (2 Nephi 5:10; 25:24). However, although they are supposed to have been Hebrews, they were descendents of the tribe of Joseph (1 Nephi 5:17) or Manasseh (Alma 10:3), not the tribe of Levi and family line of Aaron, as the Law of Moses dictates (Numbers 3:10; Exodus 29:9; Numbers 18:1-7), so they would not have had a legitimate priesthood.

8. According to the Book of Mormon, there were many high priests serving at the same time (Mosiah 11:11; Alma 13:9-10; 46:6,38; Helaman 3:25) in the New World, among those it describes as Jewish immigrants from ancient Israel who "kept the law of Moses" (e.g., 2 Nephi 25:10; Jacob 4:5; Jarom 1:5). In contrast, it is clear from the Bible that only one individual at a time occupied the office of high priest under the Old Testament dispensation (see, for example Leviticus 21:10; Matthew 26:3; Hebrews 8:6-7). (The mention in Luke 3:2 of "Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests" is not a real exception -- in Christ’s time Israel was under the domination of the Romans, who intervened to change the high priest at will. That is, this office became a kind of "political football," rather than following the appointment process dictated in the Law of Moses. See John 18:13, which describes Annas as "father-in-law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.")

9. The people described in the Book of Mormon operated multiple temples (Alma 16:13; 23:2; 26:29). This violates the dictates of the Old Testament Scriptures on two counts: First, God commanded Israel to build only one temple to reflect that fact that there is only one true God (Deuteronomy 12:5,13-14; 16:5-6). Second, the one legitimate temple was to be built in Jerusalem (Zion), the location designated by God (The Old Testament is filled with explicit references to God choosing Jerusalem [Zion] as the place where "His name would dwell" in the temple: for example, 1 Kings 8:44,48; 11:13,32,36; 14:21; 2 Kings 21:7; 23:27; 1 Chronicles 28:4; 2 Chronicles 6:6; 7:12,16; Psalm 78:68-69; Isaiah 18:7.

10. The most common biblical terms used to describe the Old Testament priesthood, temple and appointed feasts, are entirely missing from the Book of Mormon. Here are 10 examples of such biblical terms with their frequencies, that never appear once in the Book of Mormon:

"Aaron" – this name appears 48 times in the Book of Mormon, but never in reference to the biblical Aaron or the Aaronic priesthood

Conclusion: The contradictions between the Book of Mormon and the Bible constitute a most serious obstacle to accepting the Book of Mormon as Latter-day scripture that is supplemental to the Bible. The Bible came first, not the Book of Mormon. And whereas the Bible is organically linked to the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ by extensive surviving manuscript evidence going back as far as A.D. 125-30, the Book of Mormon is wholly lacking in any such evidences of ancient origin.

Is it not reasonable, therefore, to make the Bible the standard for judging the Book of Mormon, and not the other way around? If we accept the Bible as our "measuring stick" for spiritual truth, the Book of Mormon must be rejected.

Dear restornu:

Since there is absolutely no Old or New Covenant (testament) evidence or prophecy regarding Jesus appearing in South America, it fails the Biblical test.

I was cracking a joke about the absurdity of Joseph Smith's belief that he had magic glasses and all the strange things he professed. The Lord says that we will be ashamed if we commit idolatry. I think it is idolatry for Mormons to give more weight to Joe Smith and the Mormon Church than to Jesus and what He said. Don't forget, the Lord God says --

"I am a jealous God and I will have no gods before me."

Meaning no doctrine, no loved one, no historical religious figure, no saint, no Mercedes Benz (help me on that one Jesus), no work of our own hands, no beloved child, no romantic lover, no one and no thing can be in our hearts before the Lord.

And the Lord IS the Bible.

This is why John took such pains to spell out that:

"In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God. And the Word WAS God....

... and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us."

So if this living, breathing Word, the Bible, is as Paul says; "the Word is alive and active, it is a double edged sword, with the ability to seek out and judge the secret emotions--" then, that means that there is some metaphysical quality to the Word itself. God says that "His word will never come back void". God said that "heaven and earth shall pass away, but His Word shall never pass away."

So I believe Mormons fail to hold the Incarnate Word to the Biblical standard, and idolatrously hold their extra-Biblical texts as sacred as God's holy Word.

This is a big problem. So if I joked that Joe Smith had an LSD trip about Jesus coming to South America, it was just attempting to put this huge idolatrous and blasphemous mess that is the Book of Mormon into perspective.

It is not a bitterness at all against any one Mormon, per se. So, qualify your arguments, please restornu. And again, the name of our savior Jesus Christ, please consider that adding to the Word of God is a sin.

The New Testament means new "covenant" -- or legally binding contract. A testament is a covenant or contract. Anyone who adds to a contract changes it. That is exactly what Joe Smith tried to do -- change the new covenant or New Testament by adding to it. Joe Smith is fooling a lot of people out of their salvation.

Please consider his error, restornu.

On the sixth day of Creation, God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness” (Genesis 1:26). It is alleged by Mormons that the use of the plural in this verse implies a multiplicity of “gods.” However, to Christain theologists an examination of the context reveals that the doctrine of the Trinity is being conveyed (see Leupold, 1942, 1:86ff.).

The Holy Spirit was active at the Creation, “hovering over the face of the waters” (1:2). “Hovering” refers to attentive participation (cf. Deuteronomy 32:11). Elsewhere, the Bible makes clear that Jesus also was present at the Creation, in active participation with Deity’s creative activity (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2; 2:10). Hence, when God spoke of “Us,” He was referring to Himself and the other two members of the divine Essence [cf. “Godhead” (theotes) in Colossians 2:9, “divine” nature (theios) in Acts 17:29 and 2 Peter 1:3-4, and “divinity” (theioteis) in Romans 1:20. The first term (theotes) differs from the third term (theioteis) “as essence differs from quality or attribute” (Thayer, 1901, p. 288; cf. Vine, 1966, pp. 328-329; Warfield, 1939b, 2:1268-1270)]. Some (e.g., Archer, 1982, p. 74) have suggested that God was including the angels in the “us,” since “sons of God” sometimes can refer to the angels (e.g., Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; cf. Psalms 29:1; 89:6), and “sons of God” can be shortened to “God” while still referring to angels (e.g., compare Psalm 97:7 with Hebrews 1:6, and Psalm 8:5 with Hebrews 2:7,9). In either case, the fact remains that the Bible presents a consistent picture that there is only one God, and that this divine essence includes three—and only three—persons.

When are you going to figure out that the New Testament has been changed lots of times, but not by us.

Do you have any evidence for this assertion ?

If not, ... then why would we believe it ?

Reliability of New Testament Documents
by Robert Montgomery

The Bible is an extraordinary document: It was written over a period of 1500 years, in three different languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), by 40 different authors from very different walks of life including kings, peasants, fishermen, a herdsman, a doctor, scholars, etc. Yet in spite of such diverse conditions and the discussion of such controversial issues as the nature of God, the nature of man, the problem of evil, and others, there is a marvellous unity and continuity of though throughout.

In the 20th Century, many Biblical affirmations have been supported by psychological, archaeological, and historical research. In spite of this, the Bible has been ignored and maligned by believer and unbeliever, often leading to misconceptions.

One of the more common misconceptions of the Bible is that over the centuries it has been changed either on pupose or by accident such that we no longer know what the originals said. It is this misconception that we will discuss, and in particular as it relates to the New Testament.

When Was It Written?

To begin, the New Testament is composed of 27 individual works called “books”. Five of these books are historical narratives (the four gospels and Acts). One is apocalyptic (Revelation), a symbolic vision of the end of the world. The other twenty-one are didactic in the form of letters written to individuals or the churches.

It is helpful to note when these books were written. F. F. Bruce, one of the foremost scholars of Biblical criticism, dates the four gospels as follows: Matthew, 70-80 AD; Mark, the early 60s; Luke, the late 60s; and John, 90-100 AD. The 13 books written by the apostle Paul date from 48-64 AD. (1)

Some wonder, since Jesus was crucified around 30 AD, why did the early Christians wait 30 to 60 years to write the accounts of his life? A simple explanation is that Jesus spoke very clearly of his return to his disciples. The disciples interpreted this to mean shortly after his resurrection and ascension.

They were thinking only in terms of a few years and certainly not in terms of many decades or centuries. If Jesus were to return in a few years there would be no need to make a written record. But when Jesus’ disciples started to be executed and die, several of the remaining disciples and their close associates undertook the task of writing the story of Jesus’ life, before all of the eyewitnesses were gone.

Ancient Manuscripts

With this background, we turn again to the question of change. What do the ancient manuscripts reveal about the transmission of the New Testament through the centuries?

In museums in Europe, the Mid-East, and North America, there exists just over 250 partial or complete papyri and manuscripts of the Greek New Testament dating from 130 AD through 700 AD. The oldest virtually complete document is the Chester Beatty Papyri dated at 250 AD. Apart from these there are an additional 5000+ Greek manuscripts dating from 700 to the 1500s. (2)

Manuscripts Compared

One might say that it is nice to have a lot of manuscripts, but how different are they from one another? Is there any evidence of change over time?

When all 5,250+ manuscripts are compared, a total of about 100,000 variants are found. At first glance 100,000 seems like a large number, but this includes misspellings, changes in word order of a sentence, the omission or inclusion of the Greek definite article with proper names, and other minor variants. When all the minor variants are eliminated that do not affect the sense of meaning of a passage, we are left with only 235 variants of any significance. Of these there are only 5 which bring into question the genuineness of a part of the text. Here is a list of the 5 passages in question: Mark 16:9-20, Luke 22:20, 22:43-44, 23:34, and John 7:53-8:11. (4)

What does this abundant documentation mean? Through the work of textual criticism, the art and science of reconstructing the original from the multiplicity of manuscripts, it can be safely concluded that the composite Greek text from which the major English and French translations are made is essentially that which was written in the first century.

The Biblical scholar, Sir Francis Kenyon, wrote: “The interval between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant (still existing) evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.” (5)

It is important to note that modern English translations are not made through a comparison of previous translations but through a careful study of this composite Greek text know to scholars as the “Nestle Greek Text”.

The Evidence of Philology and Geography

Besides the manuscript evidence which shows that the New Testament is a first century document, there are two other fields of study which bring us to the same conclusion.

All living languages undergo constant changes in vocabulary and popular expressions. At the time the Greek New Testament was written koiné Greek was a living language undergoing slow transformation. A study of the vocabulary, phrases, and grammar of the New Testament in comparison with other Greek writings of earlier, the same and later time periods shows that the New Testament must have been written in the first century and before 200 A.D., by which time the Greek language had changed substantially.

The last line of evidence is geographical in nature. The writers of the four gospels show a personal acquaintance with Hebrew culture and with the geography of Israel and Jerusalem of the first century. For example John fixes the location of certain places in the city of Jerusalem with such accuracy that he must have been familiar with the city before its destruction in 70 A.D. by the Roman legions. A writer in the 2nd century would not have had access to such knowledge which we have only been able to verify this century through archaeological excavations.

Conclusions

What can we conclude from all of this? We must remember that the New Testament is not simply a moral, religious, and philosophical document but that it is also a history. Those who said 50 years ago that the New Testament was written after the 1st century have been proven to be wrong. Those who say today that the New Testament has been significantly altered or changed through the centuries have no legitimate proof of this claim. In fact, all the documentation and research thus far shows that it has indeed not been changed.

When you pick up a copy of an English translation of the New Testament, you can be confident that it is based on a Greek text that has been attested as genuinely first century in origin and that it was written either by eyewitnesses to the events or their direct associates.

F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Document: Are They Reliable?, (Eerdmans, 1943), 14th reprinting, 1980, p. 12.

Norman L. Geisler & William Nix, A General introduction to the Bible, (Moody Press, 1968), footnote30, p. 285.

Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, (Here’s Life Publishers, 1972), 2nd Printing, 1979, p. 42.

Sir Frederic G. Kenyon. The Bible and Archaeology, (Harper & Row, 1940), p. 288.

John W. Wenham, Christ and the Bible, (Intervarsity Press, 1973), p. 191-193.

Robert Montgomery lives in Gatineau, Quebec and works with the Christian Embassy of Canada.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.