Thoughts on the article "The Bible or the Book of Mormon?" by Greg Koukl

[master_mormon]

Since the thread to this article is closed, I decided to just post a few things in response to this article. I found a number of problems with it.

1. The title alone "The Bible or the Book of Mormon?" is a fallacy of false dilemma. It does not have to be the Bible or the Book of Mormon. It can be both. The premise of this title I believe is as absurd as one saying "The Old Testament or the New Testament" One may choice to make it an either/or premise but it does not have to be.

2. The Bible is not a "book" but a collection of books and letters. The word Bible origins are from the meaning "the books". This should go without saying but too many think of it as a singular book and its not.

3. Greg asserts that Bible is either given by God to man or produced by man about God. Either divine or not divine. The problem is it really is a combination of both. Though God inspired the overall teachings in the Bible, man had to take that inspiration and explain it in their own words. A couple of non-LDS scholars explain this rather well

"The Bible is not one book by a single author, but, as the Bible itself clearly indicates, it is many books, by many authors who wrote over the course of more than a thousand years. Moreover, the Bible contains different points of view and often contradictory understandings and formulations of the nature of God, and of our relationship with him and with other human beings. The Bible is not in any simple sense the word of God, but rather the words of Amos and Isaiah, of Luke and Paul." (Michael C. Coogan, "The Great Gulf Between Scholars and the Pew," in "Bible Review", June 1994, p. 45)

"We must not regard the bible as an absolutely perfect book in which God is Himself the author using human hands and brains only as a man might use a typewriter. God uses men, not machines, men with weaknesses and prejudice, and passion as ourselves, though purified and ennobled by the influence of His Holy Spirit... It (the Bible) is as a mine of precious ore is richer in one part than another... It is foolish to ignore the existence of the human medium through which the light has come..." (Rev. J.R. Dummenlow, Commentary on the Holy Bible, N.Y. MacMill 1960 p. 134)

4. Greg asserts "Another thing that this view doesn't take into consideration is that the Bible itself claims to be God's word." The reality is nowhere does any passage refer to a collection of books the author calls the Bible. This is because the Bible as a collection of books did not exist until hundreds of years after the last books found in it where written. Yes the individual books that make up the Bible where written before the compilation of the Bible but no passage within these books refers a collection of books called the Bible. Just as we would not expect to find any reference to the Declaration of Independence from Christopher Columbus, one should not expect to find any reference to what we call the Bible from any book that makes up the Bible.

5. The author does not seem to think the Bible has errors or can have errors since its inspired by God. But as noted, God did not chose the words the writers would write. The writers had to do the best to describe the divine inspiration on their own. Also since the language of man is limited, its not possible for the limitations of man's language to perfectly express the
the inspiration of the divine. The fact is many non-LDS biblical scholars admit the Bible is not perfect. So why should the LDS be condemned for something that is accepted generally. Here are just a few quotes of which many more can be provided.

"The number of errors [in the Bible]...amounts to about 6,000! It is absurd to try to make this factual reality conform to the popular impression that the Bible,...is totally error-free because God personally not only rendered it originally in true form, but has, over the past few thousand years, personally seen to it that the Scriptures continue to be his personal word." (Steve Allen, "On the Bible, Religion, & Morality", Prometheus Books, 1990, p. 52)

"What fundamentalists insist is not that the Bible must be taken literally, but that it must be so interpreted as to avoid any admission that it contains any kind of error. In order to avoid imputing error to the Bible, fundamentalists twist and turn back and forward between literal and non-literal interpretation...In order to expound the Bible, as thus inerrant, the fundamentalist interpreter varies back and forward between literal and non-literal understandings, indeed he has to do so in order to obtain a Bible that is error-free." (James Barr "Fundamentalism," The Westminster Press, 1978, p.40)

"The original copies of the various books in our canon, as they came from the pen of their respective authors, were free of all errors and discrepancies is a pure postulate. The Bible nowhere claims that to be that case, and no autograph exists to allow the postulate to be tested. The text of Scripture as we now posses it, even in the best critical editions, contains errors and discrepancies." (Paul J. Achtemeier, The Inspiration of Scripture, Phildelphia: Westminster Press, 1980, p. 71)

"Today all but the most extreme Jewish and Christian fundamentalists recognize the complicated and heterogeneous origins of the Bible and that it contains statements that in any other literary work would be considered erroneous." (William H. Barnes, "Inspiration and Inerrancy," The Oxford Companion to the Bible, edited by Bruce Metzger and Michael Coogan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993) p. 304)

I am sure one could post scholars who say otherwise and that is not the overall point. The point is its not an LDS only view. Many outside the LDS church also say it so to give the impression that LDS are simply the oddballs on the issue is wrong.

6. Greg asserted that the Bible is "a translation directly from the best Greek manuscripts we possess. It's a direct translation from the Greek to the English, a one-step process..."
This is not correct. Most of the Bible is not from Greek but Hebrew. There is a thing in the Bible called the Old Testament. Though the New Testament is written in Greek, this does not mean it was a one step process at least in regards to the 4 gospels. Jesus is said to have spoken Aramaic. So what we have is a two step process Aramaic to Greek to English. Its common for meanings to be lost when one goes from one language to another as often words in another language don't quite of the exact meaning from the language they are translating to. So meaning would have been lost putting Christ's words from Aramaic into Greek and more meaning can be lost from going from Greek to English. Regardless its not all a "one step process".

7. Greg cites Bruce R McConkie (he spells his name McConky which is wrong) who speaks about the Bible having gone through corruptions and says in regards to this "This Mormon theologian claimed--totally contrary to fact--that the Bible has been changed so many times in its copying and recopying down through the years that no one knows what the original was like. I was actually shocked to see a sophisticated theological work by a principle Mormon theologian offer such an academically lame response to this issue....This Mormon theologian did no homework. None. Zero. Zip. Because any homework in this area reveals quite a different thing--99.8 percent purity of the Scriptures--far better than any other manuscripts from antiquity, bar none."

The fact of the matter is many non-LDS scholars hold a similar position to McConkie. For example

"The original copies of the various books in our canon, as they came from the pen of their respective authors, were free of all errors and discrepancies is a pure postulate. The Bible nowhere claims that to be that case, and no autograph exists to allow the postulate to be tested. The text of Scripture as we now posses it, even in the best critical editions, contains errors and discrepancies." (Paul J. Achtemeier, The Inspiration of Scripture, Phildelphia: Westminster Press, 1980, p. 71)

"Texts had been copied over and over again by the hand of man for hundreds, and, in the case of the Old Testament, for thousands of years. There must invariably be mistakes by scribes and copyists that have never been corrected. No one of us could copy even ten pages of manuscript without making some errors. We would at least forget to dot some "I's" or cross some "T's"; But the most of us would leave out words, write some words twice; leave out some lines, repeat some lines and make many other blunders that would cause our copy to vary from the original. Just these things have happened with manuscripts of the Bible..."

"A slip of the pen, an error of sight, and of hearing, or an error of memory on the part of a scribe or copyist, would be preserved and perpetuated with the same care as that exercised in preserving the best text. Subsequent copyists and translators would not only peretuate earlier errors, but would add some of their own. This kind of mulipication of manuscripts, extending down through the centuries, opened the door to untold possibilities of many kinds of errors in the text that was thus treated." (The Ancestry of the English Bible, by Dr. I. M. Price, p. 11)

"Odd though it may seem, scribes who thought were more dangerous than those who wished merely to be faithful in copying what lay before them. Many of the alterations which may be classified as intentional were no doubt introduced in good faith by copyists who believed that they were correcting an error or infelicity of language which had previously crept into the sacred text and needed to be rectified. A later scribe might even reintroduce an erroneus reading that had been previously corrected." (Bruce M. Metzger "The Text of the New Testament" p. 195) "The number of deliberate alterations made in the interests of doctrine is difficult to assess. Iraneus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Eusebius, and many other Church Fathers accused the heretics of corrupting the Scriptures in order to have support for their special views.?"(ibid, pg. 201)

More could be cited including the views of a number of prominent Dead Sea Scrolls Scholars. The point being should we consider all of these men to be ""academically lame" and not have done their "homework"?

In regards to the 99% purity that Greg is talking about, these manuscripts are all post 3rd century A.D. copies which post date the 2nd Century A.D where a number of Christian historians complained about manuscript text altering occurred. As John Gee notes in his article "The Corruption of Scripture in the Second Century" at http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/1999GeeJ.html

"If we assemble all the manuscripts from the second and third centuries and just note those chapters where even a part of a verse is attested, we find that entire books are missing, including 1-2 Timothy, 1-2 Peter, 2-3 John and Jude. Of the twenty-eight chapters in the gospel of Matthew, there is no manuscript containing even a single verse of sixteen of these chapters before the end of the third century."

So if one really wants to show the case that no textual corruptions where occurring, they need to find complete 1st or early 2nd century manuscripts which none exist.

8. Greg contends that one will not find Mormon doctrines in the Bible. Though it would be true that one will not find every doctrine in the Bible there are many that we believe are found there. Secondly, nowhere does the Bible say that every doctrine of God is found in the Bible so its a moot point.

9. Greg claims that Mormons don't quote the Bible much. Mormons quote the Bible as often as necessary. Joseph Smith preached from the Bible more often than he did the Book of Mormon. Greg's claim is just silly.

10. Greg does not like the LDS interpretation of Ez. 37 which talks about the sticks of Judea and Joseph and claims the context here is referring to verse 21. Well if it does refer to verse 21 then why did Ezek just say it without going through all this nonsense. I think its a separate issue being discussed in that passage but since it has similarities to the two books that both events are classfied together. The New English Bible has a better translation of this passage based on a better understand of the Hebrew word for "stick" (which follow more recent archaeological discoveries) and it fits better with the LDS view than any other view I personally have seen. It states:

"These were the words of the Lord to me: Man, take one leaf of a wooden tablet and write on it. `Judah and his associates of Israel.' Then take another leaf and write on it, `Joseph, the leaf of Ephraim and all his associates of Israel.' Now bring the two together to form one tablet; then they will be a folding tablet in you hand. When your fellow-countrymen ask you to tell them what you mean by this, say to them. These are the words of the Lord God: I am taking the leaf of Joseph, which belongs to Ephraim and all his associate tribes of Israel, and joining it to the leaf of Judah. Thus I shall make them one tablet, and they shall be one in my hand. The leaves which you write shall be visible in your hand for all to see."

Sounds like two different records or books of scripture to me but if one choses to think differently than fine. The LDS view is plausible however.

More emotional arguements are made by Greg as you can read and I can respect the his right to believe as he choses but just because one has a different perspective does not mean they have not done their "homework".

[just Johnna]

Good work master_mormon!

[Bill the Cat]

if you say so...

“The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.” – Sir Frederic Kenyon, The Bible and Archaeology (New York: Harper & Row Publishers), 1940, p. 288.

“Only 40 lines (or 400 words) of the New Testament are in doubt whereas 764 lines of the Iliad are questioned. This five percent textual corruption [of the Iliad] compares with one-half of one percent of similar emendations in the New Testament.” – Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press), 1968, p. 367.

“One word of warning already referred to must be emphasized in conclusion. No fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading.” – Sir Frederic Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts (New York: Harper & Brothers) 1941, p. 23

Most of the quotes you provided were out of their context and seem to closely resemble some material from Kerry Shirts' website. Are you he?

If not, you may want to have a look at this article: http://www.watchman.org/lds/reliabilitybiblelds.htm

where the authors conclude:

our observation was that the quotations used by Mr. Shirts were either taken out of context, exaggerated, or they misrepresented the views of the authors he cited. In every instance we were able to check, his research was faulty.

[PostHoc]

In your very first point you said "The title alone "The Bible or the Book of Mormon?" is a fallacy of false dilemma. It does not have to be the Bible or the Book of Mormon. It can be both. The premise of this title I believe is as absurd as one saying "The Old Testament or the New Testament" One may choice to make it an either/or premise but it does not have to be."

But that assumes that both are compatible. When someone says, "You can either believe in God, or not believe God" its assumed that you cannot believe both. You might be able to believe in something else between that, but you cannot believe both, they are incompatible.

When Koukl says the Bible or the Book of Mormon, he is saying that they are incompatible. For example in the Book of Mormon. II Nephi 25:23 I think, says that you are saved by grace after all you can do. That is a combination of works and grace. I've heard many Mormon Missionaries say that salvation comes by a mixture of works and grace. While Romans 11:6 says something to the effect that if it (salvation) is by grace, then it is not of works, and if it is by works, then it is no longer grace, for grace would no longer be grace.

This is not a false dilemma.

[fghtdir]

First let me qualify my statment. I am a student of theology with a specialization in western Christianity and apologetics... I am also LDS.

What you say is sort of true. The LDS church does speak a lot of salvation by works and grace. This is based on the following scriptures.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

James 2:14-17 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

Grace is the pathway to salvation. Grace is the gift that God gave us through Christ's atonement. Works is the fruit of that salvation. It comes after.

The LDS chirch does not meant that works will save you, they (we) do not belive that just by being a "good person" you will be saved. However after you received the gift of God's grace, which is free for the taking, you will manifest the fruits of this change in your life. That is where the works come in. Grace is what gets you there, faith and works keep you there.

[PostHoc]

James 2:14-17 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

If you take James to be saying that works are necessary for salvation or even to keep your salvation, then you are ignoring the context in which James is writing. In James 2 James talks about Abraham and how Abe was justified by his works when he offered his only son Isaac up as an offering in Genesis 22. However in Genesis 15 before Abraham chooses to do a work for God, God counts him as righteous for believing in God's promise. So Abraham's was righteous in God eyes before he did any work at all, his works did not save him, nor did his works make him unsaved when he sinned... he was righteous in God's eyes.

James is preaching against people who have no real saving faith, not against people who sin and have faith. Mormon doctrine of salvation completely ignores Romans 11:6, Titus 3:5, and Ephesians 2:8-9.

[Krusader]

If you take James to be saying that works are necessary for salvation or even to keep your salvation, then you are ignoring the context in which James is writing. In James 2 James talks about Abraham and how Abe was justified by his works when he offered his only son Isaac up as an offering in Genesis 22. However in Genesis 15 before Abraham chooses to do a work for God, God counts him as righteous for believing in God's promise. So Abraham's was righteous in God eyes before he did any work at all, his works did not save him, nor did his works make him unsaved when he sinned... he was righteous in God's eyes.

James is preaching against people who have no real saving faith, not against people who sin and have faith. Mormon doctrine of salvation completely ignores Romans 11:6, Titus 3:5, and Ephesians 2:8-9.

Let me add to your excellent explanation: Ephesians 2:8-9, also states that salvation is "not of works lest any man should boast." This boasting includes doing works that in anyway effect the fact of our salvation. Works may be rewarded, but they have nothing to do with "keeping" us saved, as our Mormon friend here states.

Also, Mormons should acquaint themselves with John chapter 10, and meditate upon the words of our Lord:

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them and they follow me." Note, sheep hear and follow. They have a new nature through regeneration, and they always hear the Lord and follow Him, for He is their Shepherd and they desire to be with Him. Their Shepherd is responsible for their safety, and He will lose none of them.

"And I will give them eternal life; and they shall never perish."

For the sheep, eternal life is a present reality. They can know with a certainty that they will never, ever perish, because their shepherd has promised them this. They don't have to perform any rituals, attend any special services, go to any temples, knock on any doors, or go on missions, to have this eternal life. It is their present possession. They can never perish - and never means never. It doesn't mean that if they fail to keep to certain standards, or do certain works, they will perish - it means they will never, never, never perish.

"Neither shall any many pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand."

The sheep are the Father's present to the Son. The Father and the Son have those sheep securely in their hands. Who, then, is able to take away their salvation? Can Satan? Can works, or lack thereof? Can anybody or anything separate them from Christ?

The hyper-arminianism of Momons, and other groups, has a low view of God's wonderful, sovereign grace.