Eight myths about the Bible

Norfolk LDS Church Examiner ^ | June 22 | Greg West

[delacoert]

Latter-day Saints love the Bible and believe it as scripture. Indeed, Joseph Smith went so far as to say that we are the only people who truly believe it as it is written. Modern, sectarian Christians hang Bible verses like ornaments on an artificial tree constructed of man-made creeds, ignoring the passages which conflict with or contradict their doctrines. In the process, they have allowed a number of myths about the Bible to be promulgated because it serves their own ends. The following eight myths are summarized from "Here We Stand" by Joseph Fielding McConkie (1995, Deseret Book) McConkie is a professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University.

1. The Bible is a single book

McConkie points out that the Bible is a collection of books which were gathered together by men over thousands of years. The Jewish Bible consists of 24 books that Christians call the Old Testament. The actual books that are agreed upon by Jews came from a council in 90 A.D. in Jamnia (near Joppa, Israel). At his council, it became so contentious that it resulted in bloodshed. (McConkie, 36)

Christians have divided these 24 books into 39 and ordered them differently. Their version of the Old Testament comes from the Greek Septuagint, which was rejected by Jews, because of the influence of Greek thought and the inclusion of the Apocrypha. Catholics accept the Apocrypha as scripture because they sustain otherwise unscriptural doctrines, such as masses for the dead and the existence of Purgatory. (McConkie, 37-38)

The origin of the New Testament begins with two second-century heretics. Marcion, a bishop's son and a wealthy ship owner, was the first to create a canonical list of books. His list rejected the Old Testament entirely as scripture and "was closed to all but ten of the epistles of Paul and the Gospel of Luke." Macrion's false teachings caused him to be excommunicated from the ancient Church. Macrion's excommunication was so final that the Church gave him back all the money he had donated.(McConkie, 38)

The second "heretic" was Montanus who declared that he was the incarnation of the Holy Ghost promised by the Savior to come. He denounced the absence of revelation in the church and the lack of spiritual gifts. To counteract his claims, the church began to teach that there would be no further disruptive revelations and that the canon of scripture was closed.

Over the next two centuries, Origen of Alexandria divided the books in his New Testament into classes of acknowledged books and disputed texts. The list of disputed books included James, 2nd and 3rd John, 2nd Peter, Jude, the Letter of Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas. This constituted the oldest Greek manuscript, consisting of 29 books. (McConkie, 39)

Eusebius of Caesaria omitted not only the Shepherd and Barnabas from his list, but also the Book of Revelation. Most Greek manuscripts omit it also. Other disputed books which Eusebius rejected were the Acts of Paul, the Revelation of Peter, and the Teachings of the Apostles. (McConkie, 39)

In 367 A.D., Athanasius sent an Easter letter to the churches of his diocese, listing the books approved for reading in the church. This list matches the current-day New Testament. Thus it wasn't until the fourth century that there was any consensus on which books comprised the Bible.

2. The Bible preceded doctrine

Since the Bible didn't exist in its current form in the time of the Bible, how did it then form the basis for the doctrines taught by Jesus, Peter, Paul and the other apostles? "The book was created by the church, not the church by the book." (McConkie, 40) An example of doctrine preceding the Bible would be the Nicene Creed, which was devised by a council in 325 A.D. The doctrine of the Trinity emerged from this council, which took place after the church had declared that revelation had ceased, but before the time that the canon of the Bible was agreed upon. (McConkie, 41)

3. True religion is Bible religion

Since the Bible didn't exist in the time of Peter and Paul. "No one who lived within the time period of the Bible ever had a Bible." (McConkie, 41) Therefore, their religion was not "Bible religion." The Bible is the testimony that God interacts with man via revelation and spiritual gifts, directly and personally. It was not based solely upon the words of God to ancient prophets, but to living ones. Why should it not be so today?

4. Everything in the Bible is the Word of God

The Bible is the word of God so far as it is translated correctly, but every word in it was not uttered by God. The Bible contains the words of the devil to Adam and Eve in the Garden and to Jesus Christ during his temptation in the wilderness. It contains the words of Adam, Eve, a serpent, angels, prophets, apostles, and their scribes. It even contains the words spoken by Balaam's mule, who chastened him for his cruel treatment. All these are in addition to the words of God spoken to prophets and the words of Jesus Christ himself. (McConkie, 43)

5. The canon is closed 

Nowhere in the books of the Bible does it say that the canon of scripture is closed. Many will refer to the last lines of Revelation to claim that the book cannot be added to. Since the Bible didn't exist at the time of the writing of the Revelation of John, it couldn't refer to the Bible as a whole. The Revelation remained a disputed book for two centuries after John penned it. Thus the commandment that it should not be added to must refer to that particular scroll which John wrote. We should understand that most scholars believe that John himself "added to" the Bible, because it is commonly believed that he wrote Revelation before the Gospel of John. The Gospel of John came AFTER the book of Revelation in the chronological sequence of Bible texts. The apostle John told us that "...there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one...that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written."

A similar interdiction against adding to God's word appears in Deuteronomy. Following the logic of those who say the Bible can't be added to because of John's statement, we must consider tossing anything that comes after Moses and Deuteronomy. Man's rejection of further revelation is an attempt to "mute" God and deny that he has power to reveal anything new or essential to mankind. It defends the status quo, having a "form of godliness" but denies the power thereof. Since the Bible itself doesn't claim to contain all God's words, it would require a revelation from God to tell us that the Bible is inerrant, sufficient, persipicacious, and the final authority in all things. Thus, you can see the quandary: it would require a revelation to tell us that there will be no more revelation. The position is logically untenable.

6. The Bible can be interpreted independent of a predetermined ideology

McConkie poses a hypothetical situation. Suppose an angel took a copy of the Bible to a people who had no knowledge of it whatsoever and had no predetermined views on its contents. Suppose they built up a church using the Bible as their guide. Can we realistically imagine that they would, using the Bible alone, come up with anything remotely resembling the doctrine of the Trinity? Neither can we imagine that they would come up with a doctrine that one is saved solely by God's grace, without the requirement of faith and obedience to the commandments of God and the ordinances. (McConkie, 50)

The Bible doesn't clearly explain how to baptize, who can perform the ordinance, and at what age the ordinance the ordinance can take place. It doesn't explain the duties of bishops, deacons, and elders and what are the limits of their ecclesiastical authority.

Thus everyone, including Mormons, must interpret the Bible through an ideological lens. The lens the Jew uses is different than the Christian. The historian will use a different lens altogether. The Mormon's view must necessarily differ from that of Jews, the Christians, and the historian. This realization is important, because we must understand that, without modern day revelation to guide us, one Bible interpretation is no more authoritative than another. The restoration of the Gospel, the First Vision, the Book of Mormon, all provide additional light and knowledge that give us the keys to interpret the Bible correctly.

Without revelation, it would be impossible to determine whose interpretation is correct, because each interpretation will be influenced by the world view of its proponents. The same scriptures that convince a Jew that it is unlawful to turn on a light switch on the Sabbath day also convince him that Jesus couldn't have been the Messiah. (McConkie, 48) The same Bible that convinces Christians to proclaim an end to revelation and miracles also led a young Joseph Smith to "ask of God" and receive a glorious vision of the Father and the Son.

7. To know the Bible is to understand it

The Bible is probably the most misquoted book in existence. Paul is probably the most misquoted person ever. The Bible was written by living oracles of God to people who were accustomed to and accepting of the principle of contemporary revelation from God. The counsel and guidance the apostles gave were to people who had a shared understanding. It makes no sense to preach grace to those who haven't repented, been baptized,and had a remission of their sins. It doesn't add up to teach about spiritual gifts and the fruits of the spirit to those who have no right to them. The scriptures don't ask the reader to accept Christ as a personal Savior or to make a committment for Christ, because it is addressed to those who had already accepted Christ by covenant. (McConkie, 53)

The cafeteria-style doctrinal approach of contemporary Christian churches is the result of their rejection of modern revelation as a possibility. Without revelation to guide, one must try to cobble together some theology by picking and choosing what fits into one's world view and reject the rest as "metaphors" or "symbolism." (McConkie, 54)

8. The Bible is common ground in missionary work

This statement applies especially to Latter-day Saints. We often assume that the Bible is the common ground from which we can build understanding. If there was any semblance of agreement in modern Christianity, do you think there would be a thousand quarelling sects and denominations? (McConkie, 54) Joseph Smith went into the grove to pray because he came to the conclusion that it was impossible to find out which Church he should join by studying the Bible alone. This is a true statement.

In this "war of words" and "contest of opinions" that rages in Christendom, the only way to find the truth is to "ask of God." (James 1:5) Thus the Book of Mormon becomes the preeminent tool for conversion. It offers clear and plain gospel teachings free of sectarian interpretations. It clarifies the Bible's teachings and helps identify the interpolations of men. It also identifies to the sincere seeker, where and how to locate the conduit of personal revelation for himself, independent of anyone or anything else.

Latter-day Saints will be more effective by teaching the gospel from the Book of Mormon than from any other source. We should encourage all interested parties to seek truth in prayer and from the Book of Mormon. Finding the truth in this manner identifies the means of obtaining personal revelation, the source of restored authority, how to obtain the ordinances of salvation, and how to live in such a manner as to obtain and keep a remission of one's sins.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***What about producing some actual manuscripts of any of the books of the Bible? What about producing something in it that says TRINITY?***

You saw what the REAL Book of Abraham had to say! Why try to change the subject! Did Joe Smith translate it properly or not! Real Egyptologists say HE DID NOT!

[Religion Moderator]

You don't UNDERSTAND them

Reading the mind of another Freeper is a form of "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[ejonesie22]

You know, all kidding aside, it is really interesting that no LDS member has even tried to answer you question. It is a direct quote of the “prophet” and the basis of their separation from true and apostolic church.

One would think if there was indeed any merit to what Smith said they would not only be willing to answer the question but would relish the opportunity at every turn...

[Old Mountain man]

So what? I don’t really care what you and your egyptologists have to say. I believe what I believe.

Nice try, though.

[Old Mountain man]

Well, Elsie, you finally wrote something original. I had begun to doubt that you could do so.

I have never set foot in Utah, much less been a student at BYU.

Your mindreading is not as good as you thought.

[Elsie]

Rom 14:4-6

Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.

6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.

[Old Mountain man]

It’s more interesting that none of you have anything better to do than attack the Saints.

[Diego1618]

Yes; you are.

Well.....since I posted some data that evidently disagrees with your view of things....why don't you be specific and we'll discuss it?

Which official Catholic statement about the Sabbath on post #28 is the one that is incorrect? Or....which of the seven scriptures I posted does not refer to the Sabbath?

You do agree that the Mormons celebrate Sunday as their official day of worship....as do the Catholics and the Protestants....don't you?

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***So what? I don’t really care what you and your egyptologists have to say. I believe what I believe.****

With that being said would you be iterested in buying a bridge I own in New York city? Cheap, just for you!

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

****It’s more interesting that none of you have anything better to do than attack the Saints.****

We are not the ones that started this fight back about 1828 when a backwoods rube walked out of the woods and claimed all churches were wrong but he had it right and we had better believe him or he would stand in the door way to heaven and not let us in because he got it from God and we were not to question him or he would release his Danites on us and make believers of us or else!

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***Which official Catholic statement about the Sabbath on post #28 is the one that is incorrect?***

Why are you still trying to hijack this thread? if the Sabbath is so important to you in this discussion of MORMONISM go find a STRANGITE thread!

[Godzilla]

Hmmm.... I'm not sure the catholics would agree with your doctrine on the faith vs. works controversy. Do you consider catholics Christian?

Nice try to divert Don, but I am a former Catholic and do believe Catholics are Christians. Mormonism cannot openly speak its real doctrines, so it must hide behind redefined Christian terms to mislead others. Tsk tsk.

[Diego1618]

[Romans 14:4-6] 4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. 5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

This scripture has nothing to do with the Sabbath because the subject is vegetarianism (verse 2) and fast days (verse 5). How do we know a Sabbath is not being referred to? Because the word used for days is: 2250. HEMERA (hay-mer'-ah)day, i.e. (literally) the time space between dawn and dark.

Don't forget....Paul is discussing "disputable matters" (verse 1). A recognition of a day to honor The Lord would not be "doubtful disputations"....as he puts it. Paul tells the Jewish leaders in [Acts 28:17] that he has never done anything that would go against the customs of his fathers. Teaching the folks in Rome (5/10 years earlier in his letter) to ignore the Sabbath commandment.....would have qualified as "doing things against the customs of the Jewish Fathers"!

So....is the Apostle lying to them.....or is he telling them the truth?

If Paul had been referring to The Sabbath or one of the seven annual feast days, the word in the Greek would have been SABBATON, SABBATWN or SABBATOU. He was telling them the truth!

So.....just where is the scripture that tells us all the Sabbath has been done away with? The Catholics evidently can't find it. Are you certain it's there....somewhere?

[Diego1618]

Why are you still trying to hijack this thread?

First paragraph of the article: Latter-day Saints love the Bible and believe it as scripture. Indeed, Joseph Smith went so far as to say that we are the only people who truly believe it as it is written. Modern, sectarian Christians (read: Catholics and Protestants) hang Bible verses like ornaments on an artificial tree constructed of man-made creeds, ignoring the passages which conflict with or contradict their doctrines. In the process, they have allowed a number of myths about the Bible to be promulgated because it serves their own ends. The following eight myths are summarized from "Here We Stand" by Joseph Fielding McConkie (1995, Deseret Book) McConkie is a professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University.

This displays rank hypocrisy by the Mormon Church. They are just as guilty of transgressing the Sabbath as the Catholics and the Protestants. If they indeed were the real "Latter Day Saints" I'm certain they would not have followed in the same doctrinal error of Martin Luther by placing Sunday observance over that of the Sabbath, especially since the Catholic Church laughs at all you folks (Protestants and Mormons) for doing so!

Honoring Sunday as the day of resurrection....ostensibly because it is scriptural..... is the biggest myth ever perpetrated on mankind.....in history!

See itemized statements by Catholic officials in post #28.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***They are just as guilty of transgressing the Sabbath as the Catholics and the Protestants.***

Sabbath,Sabbath,Sabbath,Sabbath.

You sound like a Johny one note.

[Diego1618]

Sabbath,Sabbath,Sabbath,Sabbath. You sound like a Johnny one note.

Well......I would also invite you to show me the scripture command to ignore the Sabbath and begin observing Sunday as the day of resurrection.

The Catholics admit it's not there.....and laugh at you Protestants for following their lead in observing Sunday with no scriptural authority.

Protestant folks ought to come clean and admit it also. That way, this subject would not cause some of them to get so upset.

[TheDon]

I do believe Catholics are Christians.

I am glad! With so many disagreements over doctrine in traditional Christianity one wonders!

[TheDon]

We are not the ones that started this fight back about 1828 when a backwoods rube walked out of the woods and claimed all churches were wrong

What's a guy to do when Jesus Christ tells you all the churches are wrong? What would you have done?

[TheDon]

LOL! So much for Sola Scriptura. The catholics have their tradition of interpretation as do all the protestant faiths, whether they admit it or not. The closest thing to Trinity in the NT was a later add on by someone trying to promote their POV. Doh! There I go disparaging the Bible again....

[AmericanArchConservative]

I second that.

I have walked on both sides of the denominational delineation. All of the hundreds of people I know (those who are not enmeshed in heretical doctrine) share the belief that works are an evidentiary outgrowth of the requisite first step of salvation, as well as an indicator of the ongoing process of a committed journey of faith -

not a man-made necessity to achieving salvation itself.

That is the Domain of G_d alone, and we are not gods nor will we ever be - ludicrous twistings or reinventions of Scripture to the contrary notwithstanding...

The New Testament describes our imperfections and struggle to daily put off the old and put on the new, the battle to subdue and put to death the old man or old nature as “all creation groans expectantly... awaiting the final adoption...”

Our daily failures - falling short of the mark - is evidence of our fallen nature - the existence of original sin, passed down as a “birthright” bequeathed from Adam and Eve’s sinful failure in the Garden

(not a “wise choice” as is taught in one of the most perverted of mormon doctrines)

and a reminder that there WAS an “old man” within us, keeping us humble, that we might not think more highly of ourselves than we ought before G_D and our fellowman.

Our daily successes - doing right as instructed by the commands of the Most High, even while seeing how far we have yet to travel - gives us a goal, gives us hope, and gives us encouragement that our adoption papers will come through...

Signed, Sealed and Delivered by our Lord

A.A.C.