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.

[Godzilla]

so flds are mormons too then.

[Colofornian]

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

First of all, we must realize that Jesus doesn't speak out of both sides of His mouth...as does the Mormon jesus:

2,000 years ago "...on this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matt. 16:18; cf. Luke 6:46-49)
1820s: "Uh, gee, Joseph...I was wrong...a little off-base...but what's one false prophesy among so many I got right, eh? I mean, OK, the gates of hell did prevail against my church...but we got this rolling stone stopped now after 1500 years of prevailing. And now you're the new rock in town. And I'll try to improve so that the Lds church isn't prevailed upon, either. But I'm kind of 0-for-1 on this, so never mind my track record."

Questions for you, TheDon:

#1 I don't understand why you think that the authority, power, promises, etc. that whatever personages gave to Joseph Smith & your general authorities are multi-generational, but the authority, power, promises, etc. that Jesus gave to his early church are not. (Please explain)

#2 Why did the apostle Paul say that God would receive glory through "ALL ages world WITHOUT END" (Eph. 3:21) if the Church stopped giving glory for about 1500 years (til 1830)? (Please explain)

So, not only do you and all Mormons accuse Jesus of being a false prophet, but you lump Paul in there, too?

ColorCountry made an interesting post last year -- postulating "if demonic forces could and did prevail": If they could--if they did--Jesus is made to look foolish for having taught, "Which of you wishing to construct a tower does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if there is enough for its completion? Otherwise, after laying the foundation and finding himself unable to finish the work the onlookers should laugh at him and say, 'This one began to build but did not have the resources to finish'" (Luke 15:28-30).

CC also said in that post: LOOK also at the many New Testament verses which speak of the Church as Christ's own body, such as Romans 12:1-5; 1 Corinthians 12:12-27; Ephesians 3:4-6; 5:21-32; and Colossians 1:18. Since Christ is the mind and head of his Church (Eph. 4:15-16), animating the body, the members enjoy an organic spiritual union with him (John 15:1-8). It's inconceivable that he would permit his body to disintegrate under the attacks of Satan. The apostle John reminds us that Jesus is greater than Satan (1 John 4:4)(1 Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as "The household of God...the pillar and foundation of truth." In light of this, we find additional assurance that the house that Jesus built will not be pillaged by Satan. "No one can enter a strong man's house to plunder his property unless he first ties up the strong man. Then, he can plunder his house" (Mark 3:27; cf. Matt. 12:29). Jesus is the "strong man" guarding his household, the Church.)

A huge difference in the Mormon jesus supposedly born in Jerusalem compared to Jesus of Nazareth born in Bethlehem is that the Mormon jesus is...
...weak...
...allows Satan to 100% plunder his church...
...miscalculates badly on his kingdom tower-building...
...speaks falsely...
...picks a bumbling Apostle Paul, who likewise gets all this wrong in both Eph. 3:21 and 1 Tim. 4:1 [only SOME would depart from the faith -- not ALL]...

I ask all: Is this the jesus you want to trust in for your salvation? The true Kingdom of Jesus of Nazareth is unmoveable -- unshakeable (Hebrews 12:28).

[TheDon]

"...on this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matt. 16:18; cf. Luke 6:46-49)

I didn't know you were catholic. :-) The restoration of the Savior's church in the modern era is a fulfillment of this prophecy. The gates of hell have not prevailed. In the end, the Savior has.

Paul thought differently than you on this topic.

2 Thessalonians 2
1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

[Wings-n-Wind]

More LDS cult clap-trap....
Doubt they will ever learn...

my humble only...
You are entitled to your own

[Elsie]

A recognition of a day to honor The Lord would not be "doubtful disputations"....as he puts it

Oh?

Then WHY are we having this discussion?

[Elsie]

So.....just where is the scripture that tells us all the Sabbath has been done away with?

There is, in Jerusalem, a certain speed that is set, by law, to not exceed.

The law-abiding Jews do not exceed it.

That law does NOT apply to me in the town I live in.

Likewise, certains LAWS were given to the JEWS by GOD; because THEY were His chosen people.

Gentiles (not the MORMON kind) were NOT given those laws, no matter how much others WISH that they had been.

---

[Elsie]

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

HA Ha ha!

We GENTILES laugh at MORMONS for doing their Temple Rites that are found NOWHERE in ANY of the 'official' Mormon 'Standard Works'.

[Elsie]

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

I guess the rock-solid 'doctrine' of MORMONism keeps anyone from straying and starting their OWN brand of MORMONism; like them NON-mormon Flds folks; who have the AUDACITY to continue to FOLLOW what GOD gave them in D&C 132.

[Elsie]

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

So now JS is as much an authority as JESUS?

(And to think I that I have huge gonads!)

[Elsie]

Doh! There I go disparaging the Bible again....

 

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.

Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words;

 neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.

 (2 Nephi 29:9-10)

 

John 19:30

When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

 

 

 

[Elsie]

...not a man-made necessity to achieving salvation itself.

You MUST be wrong; for it says, right here in Statement#3 of our Articles of Faith:

We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

--MormonDude("Workin' my WAY back to you; Babe")

[Elsie]

The restoration of the Savior's church in the modern era is a fulfillment of this prophecy.

Pedrhaps if you were to actually SHOW us something from tne BoM that was RESTORED, we might have a tendancy to listen to some of your arguments.

[Elsie]

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Good prophecy: as it describes MORMONism and JS perfectly!

[Elsie]

Methods...

http://silencingchristians.com/

[Colofornian]

Paul thought differently than you on this topic.

First of all, no, it's not a matter of what I thought -- it's a matter of what Paul himself said. Why don't you allow Paul to speak for himself? Why can't you deal with the texts I gave?

Let's try again. Here. I'll make it an easy math portion quiz for you.

Q #1 Is "ALL" > [greater than] "SOME?"

A If Paul says the Holy Spirit EXPRESSLY says that "some" would fall away in the last days (1 Tim. 4:1), why do you doubt both Paul and the Holy Spirit? (Have you told the Holy Spirit you doubt His Word in 1 Tim. 4:1?)

Q #2 If you were postulating on how many ages/generations/years the church would give glory to God since the time of Christ, what would be the apostle Paul's answer?
Multiple choice:
(a) 1500+ yrs?
(b) 1700-1800 yrs?
(c) "ALL ages world WITHOUT END"?

2 Thessalonians 2

You've read into this text that this "falling away" would occur 100-300 years post-Christ's appearance. The context of verse 1, verse 2, and verse 3 is the day of Christ ... not the...
...Council of Nicea...
...or the so-called "Dark Ages"...
...or the Protestant Reformation...
...or the day of Joseph Smith...

...and this "falling away" is directly linked to the day of Christ AND -- if you look at verse 3 and verse 4 -- the man of perdition who assumes some temple seat.

So Q#1: Can you tell me when that's already occurred? (When did the man of sin -- the man of perdition -- assume the temple seat?)
Q#2 Why do you insert a word into the text that's not there? (Nowhere does even 2 Th 2:3 say that this "falling away" would be a COMPLETE falling away)

Therefore, allow me to highlight what you seemed to miss in 2 Thess. 2:

1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

And you didn't include v. 4: 4Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. [Allow me to use the NIV for v. 4 -- making this a bit clearer to modern readers: 4He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.]

So, look at all this in context:

To paraphrase Paul:
1. "Hey, I appeal to you on the basis of Jesus returning, and our being gathered by Him."
2. "Don't worry. The Day of Christ is coming soon enough."
3. "Don't be deceived. That day won't happen til a falling away occurs with the man of sin appearing."
4. "He'll oppose God and exalt himself as God -- He's going to seat himself in the temple and be worshiped as God."

[Colofornian]

From West's article: 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.

Boy, Greg West should talk. Why doesn't West have a "convo" about this insight with the 60,000 Lds missionaries and the hordes of lds missionary overseers re: the missionaries' misuse of James 1:5?

The early part of the book of James makes it very clear he's speaking to Christians. (I mean, after all, you can't expect non-Christians to "count it all joy" when they experience trials & troubles & tribulations, can you?)

Yet the Lds missionaries for generations have applied James 1:5 (asking God for wisdom & the promise that He'll give it to them) to non-Christians. [I mean could you imagine if this was an airtight solid promise for non-christians how absurd that would be? I mean Hitler, had he had more divine wisdom on how to go about winning wars, may have actually won!]

[Colofornian]

From West's article: The Bible doesn't clearly explain how to baptize...

Then where have Mormons rec'd the "go-ahead" to dead-dunk? (It doesn't come from the Book of Mormon!) [And since the apostle Paul references a "they" -- not an "us" -- as to the ones practicing it in or around Corinth -- how is it that Lds then have gotten this tangled, new-fangled thing called proxy necro-baptism?]

[ejonesie22]

Nice duck and weave, but it just furthers our point...

[ejonesie22]

Nice duck and weave, but it just furthers our point...

[ejonesie22]

Heck, if they could just find Nephi I would cede a number of points, and it should be easy, it was a large city-state....