Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As the missionaries told me, no current translation is right, and they steered me toward the BoM.
What the missionaries probably told you was that we do not believe in Bible inerrancy. The fact that there are so many translations points to the fact that the original manuscripts can be interpreted in many different ways. Hence, thousands of people have attempted over many, many centuries to determine precisely what the writers of the various books in the Bible really meant to say. If you bothered to read my first response to the OP, you will also have to acknowledge that the canon has changed quite significantly over the years. Apparently certain books were considered at one time to be "God-breathed" and then at other times to not be. If you want to pretend that all of these facts simply don't exist and that the Bible you use today is a 100% accurate record of everything God wants us to know, be my guest.
Mormons love the Bible and they spend a lot of time reading it, studying it, and learning from it. In my 72 years as a Mormon, I have never once heard -- either over the pulpit or in any gospel study class -- that the Bible is so full of errors as to be essentially useless. When we study the Bible, it's to find truth, not to try to pick it apart and look for errors in it.
I can definitely agree with you that the Mormon missionaries focused on the Book of Mormon. It's only logical that they would do so since the people they are talking to really don't know much at all about the Book of Mormon. Many of them are, however, well-versed in the Bible. It makes all the sense in the world that the missionaries would want to introduce something they believe to be a companion to the Bible, another witness that Jesus is the Christ and the Savior of the Earth. Footnotes throughout the LDS edition of the King James Version of the Bible and the Book of Mormon cross-reference each other, adding insights to the word of God that the Bible may have been either silent or unclear on.
The two books are not in competition with each other, and it is disingenuous to try to mislead people into thinking that's the case.
What the missionaries probably told you was that we do not believe in Bible inerrancy. The fact that there are so many translations points to the fact that the original manuscripts can be interpreted in many different ways. Hence, thousands of people have attempted over many, many centuries to determine precisely what the writers of the various books in the Bible really meant to say. If you bothered to read my first response to the OP, you will also have to acknowledge that the canon has changed quite significantly over the years. Apparently certain books were considered at one time to be "God-breathed" and then at other times to not be. If you want to pretend that all of these facts simply don't exist and that the Bible you use today is a 100% accurate record of everything God wants us to know, be my guest.
Mormons love the Bible and they spend a lot of time reading it, studying it, and learning from it. In my 72 years as a Mormon, I have never once heard -- either over the pulpit or in any gospel study class -- that the Bible is so full of errors as to be essentially useless. When we study the Bible, it's to find truth, not to try to pick it apart and look for errors in it.
I can definitely agree with you that the Mormon missionaries focused on the Book of Mormon. It's only logical that they would do so since the people they are talking to really don't know much at all about the Book of Mormon. Many of them are, however, well-versed in the Bible. It makes all the sense in the world that the missionaries would want to introduce something they believe to be a companion to the Bible, another witness that Jesus is the Christ and the Savior of the Earth. Footnotes throughout the LDS edition of the King James Version of the Bible and the Book of Mormon cross-reference each other, adding insights to the word of God that the Bible may have been either silent or unclear on.
The two books are not in competition with each other, and it is disingenuous to try to mislead people into thinking that's the case.
BF seems to believe in being disingenuous to defend his fundy beliefs, Katz. Many fundies seem willing to lie for Jesus or at least what they think Jesus stands for or is against.
BF seems to believe in being disingenuous to defend his fundy beliefs, Katz. Many fundies seem willing to lie for Jesus or at least what they think Jesus stands for or is against.
Just stop it. Seriously. That's rude and condescending. But it seems to be par for the course with you. Why do you insist on being that way?
What the missionaries probably told you was that we do not believe in Bible inerrancy. The fact that there are so many translations points to the fact that the original manuscripts can be interpreted in many different ways. Hence, thousands of people have attempted over many, many centuries to determine precisely what the writers of the various books in the Bible really meant to say. If you bothered to read my first response to the OP, you will also have to acknowledge that the canon has changed quite significantly over the years. Apparently certain books were considered at one time to be "God-breathed" and then at other times to not be. If you want to pretend that all of these facts simply don't exist and that the Bible you use today is a 100% accurate record of everything God wants us to know, be my guest.
Mormons love the Bible and they spend a lot of time reading it, studying it, and learning from it. In my 72 years as a Mormon, I have never once heard -- either over the pulpit or in any gospel study class -- that the Bible is so full of errors as to be essentially useless. When we study the Bible, it's to find truth, not to try to pick it apart and look for errors in it.
I can definitely agree with you that the Mormon missionaries focused on the Book of Mormon. It's only logical that they would do so since the people they are talking to really don't know much at all about the Book of Mormon. Many of them are, however, well-versed in the Bible. It makes all the sense in the world that the missionaries would want to introduce something they believe to be a companion to the Bible, another witness that Jesus is the Christ and the Savior of the Earth. Footnotes throughout the LDS edition of the King James Version of the Bible and the Book of Mormon cross-reference each other, adding insights to the word of God that the Bible may have been either silent or unclear on.
The two books are not in competition with each other, and it is disingenuous to try to mislead people into thinking that's the case.
Look...I'm sorry. I really don't mean to throw shade at you or your religion. I'm just saying that when push comes to shove, the missionaries I've spoken to in the past put very little faith in the Bible, instead telling me that the BoM is the better testament.
Just stop it. Seriously. That's rude and condescending. But it seems to be par for the course with you. Why do you insist on being that way?
I'm repeating what a Mormon missionary told me.
Come on, BF. Everyone here knows your views by now and has no problem seeing when you are being disingenuous in support of them. You have a black or white, all-or-nothing view of the Bible and do not countenance testing its content for truth and error since you do not think there is any. The idea that both the Bible and the BoM would be considered together is completely unacceptable to you for that reason. Having any single missionary confirm your prejudice about it has no bearing on what the actual status or policy is for the LDS Church. You ARE trying to throw shade on it.
Look...I'm sorry. I really don't mean to throw shade at you or your religion. I'm just saying that when push comes to shove, the missionaries I've spoken to in the past put very little faith in the Bible, instead telling me that the BoM is the better testament.
Well then, they were pretty unusual missionaries and apparently didn't understand their religion very well. There are four books of scripture in the LDS canon. Go to any LDS website where they are mentioned and you will find them listed -- always in the following order:
The Holy Bible
The Book of Mormon
The Doctrine and Covenants
The Pearl of Great Price
Personally, I think that when push comes to shove, you are typical of a lot of people who simply hear what they want to hear, and if the missionaries told you we don't believe the Bible is perfect, you "heard" something to the effect that we don't really value it much at all.
Well then, they were pretty unusual missionaries and apparently didn't understand their religion very well. There are four books of scripture in the LDS canon. Go to any LDS website where they are mentioned and you will find them listed -- always in the following order:
The Holy Bible
The Book of Mormon
The Doctrine and Covenants
The Pearl of Great Price
Personally, I think that when push comes to shove, you are typical of a lot of people who simply hear what they want to hear, and if the missionaries told you we don't believe the Bible is perfect, you "heard" something to the effect that we don't really value it much at all.
Is it possible that a Mormon missionary makes the comment that the Book of Mormon is better translation from it's the plates than the Bible is in it's translation from it's original languages?
Is it possible that a Mormon missionary makes the comment that the Book of Mormon is better translation from it's the plates than the Bible is in it's translation from it's original languages?
Yes, that's entirely possible. We know for sure that even though we have some very, very old manuscripts of the books comprising the Bible, we do not have any of the originals. For hundreds and hundreds of years, these documents were transcribed by hand, by a number of different individuals, and then translated by still more different individuals. It should not come as a surprise to anyone that whenever human beings are involved in the transcription and translation process, there is always a chance for error.
This, of course, is true with respect to The Book of Mormon, too. As a matter of fact, on the title page of The Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith says, "And now if there be fault, it be the mistake of men: wherefore condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment seat of Christ."
The fewer times a document is transcribed and translated, the less the chance of error.
Out of curiosity, are there any archeological evidences that support the Book of Mormon?
There indeed have been numerous ones discovered, and continue to be discovered, that support the bible - even on parts of the OT.
Well then, they were pretty unusual missionaries and apparently didn't understand their religion very well.
See below...
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddie gein
Is it possible that a Mormon missionary makes the comment that the Book of Mormon is better translation from it's the plates than the Bible is in it's translation from it's original languages?
What plates...?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
Yes, that's entirely possible. We know for sure that even though we have some very, very old manuscripts of the books comprising the Bible, we do not have any of the originals. For hundreds and hundreds of years, these documents were transcribed by hand, by a number of different individuals, and then translated by still more different individuals. It should not come as a surprise to anyone that whenever human beings are involved in the transcription and translation process, there is always a chance for error.
This, of course, is true with respect to The Book of Mormon, too. As a matter of fact, on the title page of The Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith says, "And now if there be fault, it be the mistake of men: wherefore condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment seat of Christ."
The fewer times a document is transcribed and translated, the less the chance of error.
So it's ENTIRELY possible missionaries may not understand the religion very well, or be operating with faulty, incorrect, and possibly "subject to change without notice" information, correct?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCCyou
Out of curiosity, are there any archeological evidences that support the Book of Mormon?
There indeed have been numerous ones discovered, and continue to be discovered, that support the bible - even on parts of the OT.
Good question...!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
