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.

[Elsie]

Heck the stone work should still be standing tall.

http://www.bookofmormontours.com/

Maybe...

might...

could be...

[Elsie]

The one that appeared to Saul.

TWO 'personages' always trump ONE Voice?

[AmericanArchConservative]

We are instructed to “test every spirit” in the NT. Following that particular instruction is something that Joey Smith manifestly FAILED to do on the very basis of the omission of any mention of any kind of questioning or testing from any of the several highly controversial accounts of his “vision”.

Did he see a bloody “Spanish pirate” ghost, did he see G_d the Father, did he see Christ, did he see both of them...?

Or did he in fact (if he saw anything at all - ever) see one or more demonic manifestations?

It is not possible to know - not even for Smith himself. He did not question the personage (or personages) as to identity.

One figure gestures towards the other, saying “This is my son, listen to him”. Who is this “father” that is pointing toward his son? Who is the son?

You can assume that it was G_d the Father and Christ the Son...

Oh wait, no you cannot either! It is not only impossible, but also impermissible to make such an assumption. Moses had never come face to face with G_d before, and was allowed to question with whom he spoke - remember?

Whom shall I tell them...?

“Tell them ‘I AM that I AM’ hath sent thee...”

I shouldn’t have to draw the whole picture here for reasonable and intelligent people.

There are spiritual laws which govern the spiritual world, just like there are physical laws governing the physical world.

Within those laws, as the “prince of the power of the air” Satan has a broad amount of latitude to operate; he can manifest himself in many different ways, and say or do many things in order to effect a deception, but of all the lies he can and does tell, he cannot claim to be G_D himself, and he (and/or his fallen minions - demons as we call them) must identify themselves.

Moreoever, we are told that though “even the demons believe in Jesus Christ...” they tremble and quake “at the sound of His name”.

It is a fact that Joseph Smith NEVER ONCE asked the “father” figure, nor asked the “son” figure “Who are you?”, nor did he ask either of them if they were spirits of G_D, or “other” spirits.

If, according to his account of “the vision” (in any of its 6, 7, 8, forms) Smith assumed that the personage(s) were from G_D, then Smith was patently DECEIVED. He did not know the rules and laws, did not apply them, and was therefore subjected to deception.

Here, then, we are left with a classic “either/or” proposition. Either Joseph Smith failed to do as is proscribed in the Bible and thus was deceived to begin with, or he never had such an actual encounter with any such personages as are described in the multiple “vision” accounts, and made up the story himself from whole cloth, thereby willfully and purposefully deceiving others.

His alleged vision stories do not conform to the biblical convention, anymore than he himself conformed to the clear-cut standard of Deuteronomy (13: 1 - 4, and 18: 19 - 22) for establishing bona fides as a genuine Prophet of G_D.

The spirits allegedly told things which are in direct contradiction to well known Old and New Testament teachings - which no spirit of G_D ever would do

Smith was a liar, or else the spirits were. It is possible that both precepts are correct - both Smith and the personage(s) were lying.

What is crystal clear, is that it cannot be contended that both were speaking the truth. Scripture cannot and will not be “rewritten” without penalty.

A.A.C.

[ejonesie22]

Seems to be working.

[ejonesie22]

I have seen that before.

Indian Jones always said antiquities theft was a crime against humanity. What would he say about stealing entire civilizations and calling them your own...

(Hey, if the LDS folks can quote the BOM as being factual and authoritative I can use Indiana Jones with the same level of authority...)

[ejonesie22]

I don't know if Smith is the liar or the Spirits were (given his proclivities, I have my suspicions) but the net effect is the same, an errant dogma set forth to lead men away from the true Father of all.

He definitely failed the “Deuteronomy test” for prophets and was more than a tick militant for a martyr...

[editor-surveyor]

Shouldn’t this be posted under Comic Relief?

[Old Mountain man]

Then, since you agree with me that you need more help than I can offer, my suggestion would be to look in the Yellow Pages under Psychiatrists for the proper person to render help to you.

[Old Mountain man]

No, I have other, much more productive things to do.

[ejonesie22]

Actually I would need authorities on LDS doctrine and culture to actually answer questions when challenged instead of bobbing and weaving like Ali. If that person was a Psychiatrist it would be interesting.

Of course one would think that since all LDS men are priesthood holders, gods in embryo and attend seminary that answering simple challenges in a straight forward and honest way would be easy.

Give that there really are definitive answers that is.

[Old Mountain man]

So, to which brand of Bible-Lite do you subscribe? And which portions of it do you ignore?

[Old Mountain man]

I’m sorry, I don’t attend seminary. Never did and unless somebody in authority appoints me to be a seminary teacher, never will. It’s nice to see that you are wrong about so very much. Perhaps straight answers are simply too much for you.

[DouglasKC]

So what happened when the Mormons arrived on the scene with their new doctrines and strange theology? They jumped in line behind Martin Luther and followed right along with this totally Catholic innovation which has no scriptural standing whatsoever! This is why (although there seem to be many fine folks among them.....as there are among the Catholics and the Protestants also) I have never taken them too seriously about much of what they say.

Same here my friend. Everyone who think the sabbath of the Lord has been "done away" with or transferred is simply following Catholic teaching and not bible facts.

[colorcountry]

Seminary is for high school kids. I went for 4 years, but OMM hasn’t ever attended. There is a lesson taught in Sunday School to adults called, “Gospel Doctrine.” I would assume that OMM has spent some time there as well as in “Priesthood Meeting” each week.

[ejonesie22]

I forgot, you did not grow up LDS.

Went in on the PT Barnum plan.

Sorry about that.

But thanks for all the support, we “protesters” are grateful for your contribution.

[ejonesie22]

Yeah, I forgot our friend was a convert...

Funny, high school seminary required, Sunday school lessons for adults, every man a priest, 18 year old fresh faced missionaries referred to as ‘elder’ but none who can openly and candidly answer questions about their own faith.

[Colofornian]

Went in on the PT Barnum plan.

LOL

[ejonesie22]

;-)

[TheDon]

It appears my question is not easy for you to answer. Let me try asking it another way. If you were walking along the road to Damascus with Saul, the Saul from Acts, and Jesus appeared and told you that you were called to be a witness for Him, how would you respond?

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***No, I have other, much more productive things to do.***

At least when OTHER Mormons give me a link I have the courtesy at least go over and look at it. I get some good info from it as it often gives me into a new insight about them, not necessarily all bad. But YOU don’t because you “have more productive things to do”. Like huff and puff on these threads.

Now don’t go away. You do provide comic relief for us!