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.

[greyfoxx39]

"Attack the Saints?

And note that this ignores the fact that the so-called "attacks" (bringing to light the fallacies of mormonism) are against mormon lies, not against individuals....

I get a kick out of that condescending claim to be "saints" by mormons....I sure haven't seen many who exhibit "saintly" behavior in my many years of observance, present company NOT excepted.

[Elsie]

(It doesn't come from the Book of Mormon!)

It comes from NONE of their 'scriptures'.

[Colofornian]

From Greg West's article: Latter-day Saints will be more effective by teaching the gospel from the Book of Mormon than from any other source.

(Oh, that's "nice.")

Let's see. The lds say dead-dunking is part of the Mormon gospel. Let me flip through their Book of Mormon pages to find that necro passage...Why, I can't find it...It's not there. Oops, Mormon.

Let's see. The lds say three degrees of glory is part of the Mormon gospel. Let me flip through their Book of Mormon pages to find that telestial passage...Why, I can't find it...It's not there. Oops, Mormon.

Let's see. The lds say men becoming gods is part of the Mormon gospel. Let me flip through their Book of Mormon pages to find that passage...Why, I can't find it...It's not there. Oops, Mormon.

Let's see. The lds say being married is part of the Mormon gospel (you can't get to exaltation without it). Let me flip through their Book of Mormon pages to find that marriage-is-part-of-the-plan-of-eternal-progression passage...Why, I can't find it...It's not there. Oops, Mormon.

Let's see. The lds say temple sealings and endowments are part of the Mormon gospel. Let me flip through their Book of Mormon pages to find those temple, sealing & endowment passages...Why, I can't find them...not there. Oops, Mormon.

Let's see. The lds say tithing & obeying the Word of Wisdom is linked to temple-access...and you can't perform or be included on temple rituals minus such access...hence, it's directly linked to the Mormon plan-of-salvation as part of the Mormon gospel. Let me flip through their Book of Mormon pages to find those temple recommends and Word-of-Wisdom passages...Why, I can't find them...not there. Oops, Mormon.

Let's see. The lds say wives can't go beyond the veil without the consent & secret handshakes of their husbands...and Lds leaders have claimed that nobody enters minus the consent of Joseph Smith... Let me flip through their Book of Mormon pages to find those consent passages...Why, I can't find them...not there. Oops, Mormon.

[Elsie]

With all KINDS of metals!

Or not...

[ejonesie22]

hehe...

Good one.

Also note that my point about Catholics and Protestants serving together in certain ecumenical organizations sharing the same message of salvation was tastefully not addressed.

Truth always screws up a good deceit...

[ejonesie22]

I find it funny that simply quoting their own doctrine is an attack...

Seems that would be a plus, getting others to spread the word and such. Unless TOO MUCH information is a bad things.

Of course that only is an issue with those who have something to hide or ideas that may not stand in the face of reasonable scrutiny or fact finding.

[ejonesie22]

Heck the stone work should still be standing tall.

[Tennessee Nana]

Oops

[Colofornian]

Oops

(Oh, don't worry. J. Smith set it all straight by telling us several times in Lds Doctrine & Covenants that the Book of Mormon is the "fullness of the everlasting gospel"...well, it was "full" insofar as it was correctly translated...somebody must have gone in and removed "many plain & precious things" from the Book of Mormon 'cause I just can't find all those "full gospel" things there...)

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

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

First you question person’s claim. Remember, even Charlie Manson claimed to be Jesus. And at the time of Joseph Smith there were several men going around claiming to be Jesus. One even ended living in the house of Joseph Smith. Smith couldn’t stand the competition so he kicked him out. This “Jesus” stole two of Smith’s candlesticks on the way out.

And “prophets” are a dime a dozen today. Just look at the tabloids over the last 40 years in the checkout line.

[TheDon]

So you would have told Jesus to take a hike?

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***So you would have told Jesus to take a hike?***

When you are well grounded in BIBLE scripture you can tell a fraud very quickly.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

**So you would have told Jesus to take a hike?**

Which one? The one Smith claimed to see in the woods or the one who stole the candlesticks? Shucks! They might have been the same guy!

But then there was another one out there also claiming to be Jesus.

[TheDon]

Interesting, you say being well grounded in the Bible allows you to detect that Jesus is a fraud? My take on the NT is that it teaches that Jesus is real.

I find it hard to believe you believe that Jesus is a fraud. If Jesus appeared to you, you would really call Him a fraud and reject Him?

[TheDon]

Which one?

The one that appeared to Saul.

[Godzilla]

They are still stinging from Promise Keepers, included Catholics and Protestants, but were clearly identified as non-Christian, inspite of the PR and weaseling to get into PK leadership and acceptance.

[Old Mountain man]

They do hate that so.

[Old Mountain man]

You would be more prone to buy it from me.

[Old Mountain man]

You haven’t made any points.