Posted on 02/19/2010 7:42:49 AM PST by restornu
The so-called lost books of the Bible are those documents that are mentioned in the Bible in such a way that it is evident they were considered authentic and valuable, but that are not found in the Bible today. Sometimes called missing scripture, they consist of at least the following:
Book of the Wars of the Lord Numbers 21:14
Book of Jasher Joshua 10:13; 2 Samuel 1:18
Book of the acts of Solomon 1 Kings 11:41
Book of Samuel the seer 1 Chronicles 29:29
Book of Gad the seer 1 Chronicles 29:29
Book of Nathan the prophet 1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29
Prophecy of Ahijah 2 Chronicles 9:29
Visions of Iddo the Seer 2 Chronicles 9:29; 12:15; 13:22
Book of Shemaiah 2 Chronicles 12:15
Book of Jehu 2 Chronicles 20:34
Sayings of the Seers 2 Chronicles 33:19
An epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians 1 Corinthians 5:9
An earlier epistle to the Ephesians Ephesians 3:3
Epistle to the Laodiceans Colosians 4:16
Prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude Jude 1:14
Book of the covenant Exodus 24:7 (may or may not be included in the current book of Exodus)
The Manner of the Kingdom, written by Samuel 1 Samuel 10:25
Acts of Uzziah, written by Isaiah 2 Chronicles 26:22
The "Acts of Abijah...in the Story of the Prophet Iddo" 2 Chronicles 13:22 (seems to not be the same as the Prophecy of Ahijah or the Visions of Iddo)
The foregoing items attest to the fact that our present Bible does not contain all of the word of the Lord that He gave to His people in former times, and remind us that the Bible, in its present form, is rather incomplete. Matthew's reference to a prophecy that Jesus would be a Nazarene (2:23) is interesting when it is considered that our present Old Testament seems to have no such statement. There is a possibility, however, that Matthew alluded to Isaiah 11:1, which prophesies of the Messiah as a Branch from the root of Jesse, the father of David. The Hebrew word for branch in this case is netzer, the source word of Nazarene and Nazareth. Additional references to the Branch as the Savior and Messiah are found in Jeremiah 23:5; 33:15; Zechariah 3:8; 6:12; these use a synonymous Hebrew word for branch, tzemakh.
Luke noted (Luke 1:1) that "many" had written about "those things which are most surely believed among us," yet our Bible has only two earlier Gospels, those of Matthew and Mark (John having been written after Luke). The Bible doesn't contain the earlier books to which Luke had reference. The books of 1-2 Kings frequently speak of the "rest of the acts" of the kings contained in the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah and the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel. Some readers undoubtedly believe that these refer to the books known as 1 and 2 Chronicles in our present Bibles. But an examination of the latter shows that they generally do not reveal any of the additional information about these kings that we expect to find there. Moreover, there is good evidence that the biblical books of Chronicles are really later reworkings of 2 Samuel and 1-2 Kings, with deletion of much more material than they add. Consequently, they cannot be the chronicles referred to in the earlier books.
Another reference to a writing not found in the Bible is in 2 Chronicles 35:25, where we read that Jeremiah's lamentation for the slain king Josiah is "written in the lamentations." Many Bible readers have assumed that Josiah is the "anointed of the Lord...taken in their pits," mentioned in Lamentations 4:20. There are two problems with this identification, however: 1) The book of Lamentations was written after the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC, two decades after the death of Josiah, and 2) The "anointed of the Lord" taken in the pit clearly refers to the last king of Judah, Zedekiah, who, at the time the Babylonians took Jerusalem, was caught "in their pit" and taken captive to Babylon (Ezekiel 19:8-9). In connection with the Nazarene prophecy, we might add that the scriptural quotes by Jesus found in Luke 11:49 and John 7:38 are not found in today's Old Testament. Similar unsupported quotes are found in Ephesians 5:14 and James 4:5f, as well as in Acts 20:35, where Paul attributes to Jesus a saying found nowhere else in the Bible, including the Gospels.
Double standard. APOSTLE Orson Pratt testified that none of the bible could be trusted. Same from smith in the bom. Even more a double standard since the bom has no golden plates to refer to - to justify the 4000+ corrections.
The converse is to believe that any translation, no matter how inaccurate, is acceptable. I hope I don't assume too much to say I don't think you would agree with that!
Appears that mormons accept this standard - case in point the book of abraham in addition to the gross anachronisms and plagerism in the bom.
If it were true, that would certainly surprise many textual criticism scholars! It wouldn't leave them with much to do. LOL!
It is incredible that you would make such a statement - except that for mormons, they must denigrate the bible in order to make the bom and the rest of their scriptures more palatable.
I'm not sure how you make the leap from acceptance of the reality of Greek NT variants to that being a denigration of the Bible. But that was how the first modern work in the field was greeted. John Mills 1707 work had some 30,000 variants and many criticised him for, no doubt, the same reasons you criticise such work. But, Mills was simply stating the facts.
As for your thinking that denigrating the Bible would somehow make the BoM more palatable. That is laughable. The Mormon faith in Jesus Christ is based as much on the Bible as the BoM. In fact the BoM testifies of the divinity of the Bible. If the Bible is shown to be a fraud, then the Mormon faith is in the same boat with traditional Christianity.
I guess we’ll just have to disagree about what I, and other Mormons, believe. :-)
Incorrect - there is still much to be gleaned through TC. However, it repudiates mormon pseudoscholarship on the transmittal of the bible.
I'm not sure how you make the leap from acceptance of the reality of Greek NT variants to that being a denigration of the Bible.
Don, I've read enough bilge from the likes of Lindsey, shirts, FAIR, FARMS and others and their mis-utilization of variants as evidence that the Bible cannot be trusted to know otherwise. The presence of variants do not equal the removal of the 'plain and precious' from scripture.
As for your thinking that denigrating the Bible would somehow make the BoM more palatable. That is laughable.
Sorry, Orson Pratt, smith TAUGHT doctrinally otherwise. It is relatively common for a cult to denegrate the status of the bible in the eyes of an potential convert. If successful at that, then they'll accept just about anything. The bible repudiates key doctrines of mormonism, plain and simple.
The Mormon faith in Jesus Christ is based as much on the Bible as the BoM.
The mormon faith in Jesus is based upon the teachings of smith - first and formost.
As challenged earlier - formally define the person, nature and work of the Mormon Jesus - since YOUR prophet is on record as stating it is a different one from Christianity.
In fact the BoM testifies of the divinity of the Bible.
How intellectually void of truth. the bom claims "many plain and precious parts" have been removed. (1 Nephi 13:26-28) and "Wherefore, because you have a Bible you need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need you suppose that I have not caused more to be written. 2 Nephi 29:10 - Sorry don, don't see ANYTHING to show the bom testifies of the divinity of the bible. You are free to post bom verses that testify to the divinity of the bible.
If the Bible is shown to be a fraud, then the Mormon faith is in the same boat with traditional Christianity.
Well, the bom has already been shown to be a fraud on many fronts and many sources, both secular and religious. So too has the book of abraham been shown to be a fraud (and the RLDS are correct at least on this point by refusing it). Where are the bom cities Don? Where are the abundance of archaeological finds that should be present for a civilization that was as the 'sands on the sea' from coast to coast.
I don't think that half of the mormons out there understand what they believe either. Pratt and smith were emphatic that the bible could not be trusted - and you've shown no evidence form the bom to say it was from God. Supplant the bible - bring in bogus works of man.
You still haven't given us a solid definition of who Jesus is within mormonism. Embarrassed about that?
I can see you refuse to be convinced that I don’t believe what you believe I believe. Under such circumstances, it is difficult to have a rational conversation. And I’m not one for irrational conversations....unless perhaps I’m tired. :-)
Real simple don - cite the bom passages where it teaches of the divinity of the Bible.
Hmmmm....should I support Godzilla in an attempted thread hijacking? Can I be held accountable as an accessory? Aw...what the heck! 2 Nephi 29
According to the Book of Mormon, only fools believe the Bible is a sufficient spiritual guide. 2 Nephi 29:6 states, "Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible."
Pretty lame Don, this chapter hardly qualifies to support your claim that the bom teaches of the divinity of the Bible.
"A Bible! We have got a Bible." The use of this phrase especially amazing since this prophecy was allegedly made around 550 BCE, long before either the canon or the name of the "Bible" existed. How does one get "bible" out of reformed egyptian heiroglyphics when even the constuction of a "book" Biblos in the Greek had yet to exist.
Thanks Don to exposing the lurkers to one of the gross anachronistic examples of the bom. LOL, this would be like the NT talking about a iMac notebook.
Not suprising of a response - the bom clearly states one thing - ask-a-mormon replys with something completely bogus. Hmmmmm which do I rely upon. Should I beleive your apostles and prophets and seers views on the unreliability of the bible, or you.
I think the lurkers will see - there is no passage in the bom that testifies to its divinity - only to tear it down.
As an added note on topic, BYU Professor Richard L. Anderson spoke on the accuracy of the New Testament at the Fourteenth Annual Symposium of the Archaeology of the Scriptures and remarked:
"For a book to undergo progressive uncovering of its manuscript history and come out with so little debatable in its text is a great tribute to its essential authenticity. First, no new manuscript discovery has produced serious differences in the essential story. This survey has disclosed the leading textual controversies, and together they would be well within one percent of the text. Stated differently, all manuscripts agree on the essential correctness of 99 percent of all the verses in the New Testament."
Remarkable honesty here - probably because he is academic, instead of a polemical apologetic.
Then what you believe is at odds with what your church teaches.
We have been over the ‘variants’, most are misspellings that are easily determined or transpositions either of letter or word. Only about 50 of them are of any consequence and even those do not affect faith and doctrine. So these, variants do not make the bible untrustworthy.
And it is trustworthy on what it says about Christ, but SOME groups misrepresent scripture and take things out of context to come up with a different Christ (like the atonement taking place in the Garden when the NT points to it taking place ONLY on the Cross).
Here is a book on the topic I suggest you read (it also addresses the various current translations): How to choose a Bible Version - Robert L. Thomas.
Have you ever done any translation work, particularly from the Hebrew and Koine Greek?
And the LDS (as Godzilla quoted Orson Pratt) have not taught that the Bible is trustworthy, hence the need for other scriptures and the JST (which contains MANY MANY changes not in any of the MSS).
I agree! Although, you, like Godzilla, don't believe what I say I, and other Mormons, believe. It is hard to carry on a rational conversation with you under those circumstances.
And the LDS have not taught that the Bible is trustworthy, hence the need for other scriptures.
What you refer to as teaching the Bible is not trustworthy is simply that we don't share your belief in the inerrancy of the Bible. And we don't share your belief that a believe in inerrancy is required to consider the Bible trustworthy. I can understand your position from your point of view, I just don't agree with it.
Or at least, you believe what I believe is at odds with what my church teaches, even though my church and I would disagree with you on that point. :-)
IF you believe the Bible is trustworthy - you are swimming against 150+ years of mormon teaching from the mouths of the prophets and standard works (minus the bible).
There you go again!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.