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.

[ejonesie22]

Hey, it's a 50/50 shot that you will either believe that the Book of Mormon is true or the “Lord of the Rings”

What will be fun is when you make that leap then come back and argue that you are more reasoned and logical than those who argue against you.

[OneWingedShark]

1. The Bible is a Single Book
Erroneous Claim: That the bible stems from the church, not the church from the bible.
a. The Bible is not one book but a collection of books: true, strictly speaking.
b. The Christians took 24 books from Judaism and re-ordered & re-organized them into the Old Testament of 39 books: False.
i. There were significantly larger works, including the Talmud which contains exposition on the Law of Moses & the writings of the prophets.
ii. Jesus did quote from the Talmud, lending it some credibility.
iii. The Chronicles of the Kings (Kings & Chronicles) is divided because one section is from the northern kingdom’s perspective and the other from the southern kingdom’s; but, in addition to that, they cover common times. Therefore, it is as logical to regard them as one book as it is to divide them into four, five or however many divisions is convenient.
c. The origin of the new testament was derived from the church via heretics.
i. This would be like saying that the “Purpose Based…” branch of thought is the origin of church denominations; that there are heretics involved in church doctrine or theology is to be expected as their warped thoughts touch on those issues.
ii. The Council of Nicea is almost always brought up in discussions of the formation of the New Testament; what people fail to realize is that the Council simply restated, in an official capacity, what Christianity’s core beliefs were.

2. The Bible Preceded Doctrine
Logical Fallacy: A –> B; ~A so ~B.
a. This is akin to saying “If you let go of the rock then it will fall; the rock fell so you let go.” It fails to take into account any other possibilities that would produce the same results… such as getting your arm cut off with a lightsaber as you are holding the rock; you did not let go, yet the rock fell.
b. The correct way to view this is that God’s revelation to mankind of Himself must needsbe incremental; a parent does not talk of physics with a toddler or ask their opinion on politics, a maturer son or daughter is needed for that. Likewise, the bible and doctrine grew up together; like knowledge and understanding should in people.

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.’”
a. Good logic, bad application.
i. The book James, thought to be the earliest book in the new testament (it is the ONLY New Testament book which does not reference Jesus as the risen lord), has much to say on ‘religion.’ I tend to view it as the ‘smackdown’ book regarding churches.
(1) James 1:26-27
(2) James 2:3-4
(3) James 2:10
(4) James 2:15-18
(5) James 2:19
(6) James 3:1-12
(7) James 2:13-18
(8) James 4:1-3
(9) James 4:13-17
(10) James 5:1-6, 7-11
(11) James 5:12
(12) James 5:13-15
(13) James 5:16-18
(14) James 5:19-20
b. Such an argument is like saying that Abraham & Joseph & Noah were unbiblical because he never had a bible… think on that.

4. Everything in the Bible is the Word of God
This is the truest ‘myth’ presented, and is the best presented.
a. The argument is that the bible quotes others, including:
i. Adam
ii. Eve,
iii. Satan,
iv. Foreign Commanders (“You will eat dung!”)
If the bible did not contain these, then it would be useless as a historical book; past experience has shown otherwise as many unknown historical claims the bible has made have been verified archeologically. (The existence of the Hititites, or the Pool of Bethsaida, for example.)

5. The Canon is Closed
Claim 1: “Nowhere in the books of the Bible does it say that the canon of scripture is closed.”
Claim 2: “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.”
a. This is true, insomuch as many cults are of a form violating some precept set forth in Revelation, such as that the second coming of Christ will be known and recognized worldwide in an instant. (Think of all those who have claimed to be the Second Coming…)

6. The Bible can be Interpreted Independent of a Predetermined Ideology
Claim: Ideologies influence how you interpret the bible.
Conclusion: Because no interpretation is ideologically free, then all interpretation is ‘bad’.
a. It is strictly true that your worldview influences how you see the bible; trivially so, your worldview IS how you see the world.
b. There is a bit of a bias here that seems to be of the train of thought that because your worldview influences your interpretation of the bible your worldview is not influenced by the bible.
c. That the concept of trinity may not arise from someone’s intrepretation of the bible does not invalidate the concept… just like modalism, though a poor explanation theologically, may not be wholly incorrect (after all, all three persons of the Trinity claim responsibility for raising Jesus from the dead… this does not mean that they are lying).

7. To know the Bible is to Understand it
Actually, I quite agree here… the bible is, honestly, full of wonder and there is always more I don’t understand than I do; that is to be expected if it is the word of an infinite God spoken to a finite man.

8. The Bible is Common Ground in Missionary Work
This is a re-statement of Number Six, though as seen through an applicational setting.

---

Comments or Criticisms of my analysis?
(Sorry about the loss of tabs.)

[ejonesie22]

Sounds reasonable.

[wintertime]

“McConkie points out that the Bible is a collection of books which were gathered together by men over thousands of years.”

(From the article)

[Safrguns]

Can someone please define “Plagiarism”?

How is it identified?
When does a work cross the line from paraphrasing or referring to or quoting,
Into the realm of stealing from, altering, and abusing?

Does anyone have a “legal” definition for it?

Cause I bet if I look it up in the dictionary, i’ll find a picture of the BOM there.

[sushiman]

The word “apple” is an appropriate translation, because etymologically, the English word “apple” is a generic term including all fruits, berries, and nuts. For example, the Old English word for cucumbers is cucumbers eorþæppla - literally, “earth-apples” or “earth fruit”. Thus, the forbidden fruit could have been an apple, fig, etrog fruit, banana, or even a cucumber - all these species would be covered by the English word “apple” in its traditional sense. And amyway , that is what I was taught in school !

[SkyPilot]

The book’s author was a convicted con man who lied, cheated, stole, started a fraudulent bank, wrote and uttered lists of false prophecies, married other mens’ wives while publicly denying it, married young teen girls, boasted that he did it better than Jesus, and destroyed another man’s printing press.

Don't go pointing out all those terrible things he did! The whole point of this thread is muddy the waters, attack, and cast doubt on Christianity itself - not to hold a mirror to the LDS! You aren't supposed to mention the flaws of Mormonism or of Joey Smith. That just defeats the whole point!

Sheesh!

[ejonesie22]

One thing that I love about the dealing with the LDS and their work is the irony of it all and two very ironic things strike me head on with all of this.

First for such a erroneous and flawed book the LDS sure like the Bible when need be. They quote it, have it as part of their scripture and most of all the PR department in SLC has spared no expense in letting the world know the Book of Mormon is a companion to the Bible.

Name brands sell, and for the past couple of decades or so the LDS PR gurus have been very diligent is letting us know that the term Christian, once rejected by the Mormons, is very much applicable now that it helps bolster sagging sales numbers.

Secondly, their own BOM follows the same format, appearing as separate "books" (Nephi, Alma etc.) written by separate “authors” and is seen as perfect vs. the Bible, despite being actaully pinned by one man with a magic hat and filled with fantasy and errors.

[restornu]

Excellent thanks for posting!:)

Up unitl a decade or so ago most of the mainstread did not ponder How we got our Bible.

Those born into the faith assumed it came that way!

Since every thing else was built upon the Bible being Infallible and Inerrant most of the Mainstream believes

metaphoric speaking...

That the Cart (Bible) goes before the Horse (Lord)

Instead of the Lord was first than the Word (Bible)

Now the words that the Lord speaks is Infallible and Inerrant but the scribe is NOT!

The Lord gives several warnings in many of the books we are aware of not to add or subtract what is said in that book.

We do not have the original copies of the manuscripts aka books and what is available is 3 or 4 copies or generation removed from the origianal.

There is nothing to compare or varify the Word too accept by the Power of the Holy Ghost.

[ejonesie22]

Now that is an ironic post...

[NoDRodee]

One thing the Bible does say is to avoid anyone who teaches any other Gospel but the Gospel of Chirst. That folks like Joseph mith would come and to aviod them.

[Elsie]

Up unitl a decade or so ago most of the mainstread did not ponder How we got our Bible.

Until the 'Net (Thanks Al!) the LDS maze was basically unnavigatable to outsiders.

Now; thanks MAINLY to MORMONism itself; all KINDS of MORMON quotes and writings have become WIDELY available (Thanks Mormons!)

Subsequently ANYONE can do research on their own and not have to listen to the MILK that is fed to the masses: yes, even masses of MORMONS.

---

Up unitl a decade or so ago most of the mainstread did not ponder How we got our Bible.

I continually PONDER as to WHY no MORMON has an answer for the question:

"What did JS 'learn' to be UNTRUE about PRESBYTERIANism?"

[Elsie]

We do not have the original copies of the manuscripts aka books and what is available is 3 or 4 copies or generation removed from the origianal.

At least that's WAY more the MORMONism has!

And the stuff we DO have SHOWS that JS was NO translator!

Book of Abraham my butt!

http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/fac_2

[ejonesie22]

It is very clear on that.

[restornu]

You assume

But your knowledge of Egyptian use of papyri is nil!

[ejonesie22]

Now that is irony...

[TheDon]

Again, I believe Marcion is the earliest individual to create a NT canon list. I don’t think that is meant to imply later lists were derived from that list, but rather that Marcion was first to create a canon list.

[Elsie]

But your knowledge of Egyptian use of papyri is nil!

You are RIGHT!!

Just like your hero; Joseph Smith; whose translation skills are ZIP, as PROVEN by REAL Egyptologists!

[greyfoxx39]

Now the words that the Lord speaks is Infallible and Inerrant but the scribe is NOT!

That's just what we've been telling you resty...the mormon scribe is FALLIBLE!

[Elsie]

Now that is irony...

No; it's stupidity, posing as FAITH.