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]

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

Why does it matter to you as you would only consider them improperly translated.

[greyfoxx39]

See my post #142...."Apologetics strategy no. 1...when you're losing the argument, make it personal and try to put the opponent on defense."

I see you are receiving a double dose of it.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

****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?***

My sins would inflict me with immediate guilt! I would cry “I am one with unclean lips!”

Isa 6:5 Then said I, Woe [is] me! for I am undone; because I [am] a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.

If I were a con artist like Joseph Smith I would con no more.
If I were an adulterer like Joseph Smith I would cease chasing other men's wives.
If I were a sheep stealer like Joseph Smith I would not return to my sheep thefts like he did!
If I were a fortune teller like Joseph Smith I would cease divining and seek honest work.

All because one in sin cannot stand in the presence of the MOST HOLY without this guilt!

What other reason would the Apostle Paul have a complete change in his demeanor!

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***I see you are receiving a double dose of it. ***

And loving it!
Maybe at least one of them will take a chance and peek at some of the links and maybe get a realization that their emperor has no clothes.

[ejonesie22]

You know, you make a vaild point. In meeting the true Christ Paul changed his ways, an outward sign of the reality of his actually being in that presence.

The fact the Smith did not really change his ways, and in some ways got worse is an outward sign of something entirely different.

[delacoert]

...when you're losing the argument, make it personal and try to put the opponent on defense.

LOL       Yes.

I find it quite strange because the tactic is so obvious and unattrative. I always wonder who is it designed to impress?

[Diego1618]

Oh? Then WHY are we having this discussion?

Because....... you evidently found something in post #28 which disagrees with your theology. You haven't specifically identified my error in that post.....but, I'm waiting.

[Diego1618]

That law does NOT apply to me..........Likewise, certain LAWS were given to the JEWS by GOD; because THEY were His chosen people.

God's laws are eternal and made for all mankind [Mark 2:27].

[Diego1618]

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

Yup! They are hypocrites also....and that was the main thrust of my original post (#28). The biggest myth about mainstream theology is that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday.....and the Mormons dutifully follow right along with the Protestants in observing this Catholic inspired, biblical absurdity.

[Diego1618]

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.

AHA! Moral support. Much appreciated, Douglas.

That line in the article.....("In the process, they have allowed a number of myths about the Bible to be promulgated because it serves their own ends")....is a very good example of the pot calling the kettle "black".

[TheDon]

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?

From your response, I can see you would not discount the vision, which I never believed you would. And so it was with the Paul, Stephen and Joseph Smith. Of course, if you tried to convince anyone else of what you saw, you would no doubt receive the same response as Paul, Stephen or Joseph Smith. Or today, instead of being killed you might just be called a crackpot. It probably depend on which country you were in. :-)

[delacoert]

The biggest myth about mainstream theology is that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday

Do you participate in Christian worship services on Saturday?

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***...if you tried to convince anyone else of what you saw, you would no doubt receive the same response as Paul, Stephen or Joseph Smith.***

But Smith didn’t change his ways! And if Smith had said he saw a 600 foot tall Christ telling him to raise money quick or God would take Smith from the earth (the Oral Roberts scam)would you send him your donation? That is why certain so-called Christian preachers don’t get a cent of mine!

And when O L Jaggers said his wife had seen the Glory of the Lord in Israel the red flag went up!

Like I say, simply because someone claims to have a personal one on one conversation with Jesus in the woods doesn’t mean it is so!

[Diego1618]

Do you participate in Christian worship services on Saturday?

I actually worship The Lord God every day....but I do hold the Sabbath as something special, divinely sanctified and made holy. I rarely participate in organized Sabbath services as I belong to no congregation. I consider myself a First Century, New Testament Christian and as such....I also observe the Feast Days as expressed in [Leviticus 23].

In addition to all that I'm yet a lost sinner without God's grace and my Savior's sacrifice.

[TheDon]

Like I say, simply because someone claims to have a personal one on one conversation with Jesus in the woods doesn’t mean it is so!

Agreed!

[Diego1618]

In addition to all that I'm yet a lost sinner without God's grace and my Savior's sacrifice.

Because of some questions that have arisen....a better way to state the above would have been to say: "Were it not for the Grace of Our Lord and Our Savior's sacrifice, I would be yet a lost sinner".

I apologize for my clumsy wording.

[Old Mountain man]

Don’t you have a show on the comedy channel?

[Elsie]

To: ejonesie22 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.

And I will consult...

...to get an answer that MORMONs WILL not answer ('cause they don't KNOW!)

[Elsie]

And which portions of it do you ignore?

YOU ignore ALL of D&C 132.

[Elsie]

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.

Speaking of FACTS: which ones did the PRESBYTERIANS ignore to earn the claim from JS that he had learned that PRESBYTERIANism was UNTRUE?