Wanna talk about the Bible?

[_Gazelam]

Some christians accept the Bible as the one true word, completely inspired of God in its entirety. At the opposite extreme, some other Christians consider the Bible as the writings of persons who may or may not have been inspired of God, which writings have little moral authority in our day. The Latter-day Saint belief that the Bible is "The word of God as far as it is translated correctly" ( Article of Faith 1:8) places us between these extremes, but this belief is not what makes us unique in Christianity.

What makes us different from most other Christians in the way we read and use the Bible and other scriptures is our belief in continuing revelation. For us, the scriptures are not the ultimate source of knowledge, but what precedes the ultimate source. The ultimate knowledge comes by revelation. With Moroni we affirm that he who denieth revelation "knoweth not the gospel of Christ" (Mormon 9:8)


Elder Dallin H. Oaks, January 1995 Ensign, p. 7-9



Lets look at an example, While studying the Bible Joseph came upon a verse that stood out to him:

While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
Never did any passage of ascripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.
At length I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in darkness and confusion, or else I must do as James directs, that is, ask of God. I at length came to the determination to “ask of God,” concluding that if he gave wisdom to them that lacked wisdom, and would give liberally, and not upbraid, I might venture.

Notice those "feelings" that came upon him. that's the Holy Ghost, leading and directing the ignorant to kneel and pray and seek further witness and knowledge from the Lord. That is the purpose of scripture.

"The question is not whether or not one should add to the word of the scripture - thousands of volumes of learned commentary have already done that - but whether such addition shall come by the wisdom of men or the revelation God" - Hugh Nibley

The scriptures are the spirit of prophecy in its recorded form. when we use them by the same spirit that they were recorded under, we gain the mind and will of the Lord as taught by his prophets.

Gaz

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason, whether or not you believe me, it is not my sole aim to humiliate you. However, like I said, you asked for a debate. Over the weekend, I will respond to your and Bond's posts in depth. If you don't mind, show me the things about the LDS faith that you feel to be biblical, meaning in alignment with biblical canon. To me, the only thing that makes Mormons Christian is that they recognize the divinity of Jesus. However, all of the "extras" they add on really weakens that position.

I do not think there is really anything in the Bible that LDS do not believe though how they interpret it may differ from other.

LDS believe in Genesis, Adam, Eve, the Fall, the Flood, Enoch, Abraham, the covenant God made with Abraham, they believe in Isaac, and Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Ten Commandments and so forth. They believe all the New Testament and all the New Testament teaches about Jesus, His mission and salvation only through Him and His atonement.

Of course there are the "add ons" that seem to trouble you. But I guess Mormons believe more of the Bible literally then many other Christians may, fundie EVs excepted.

[_Sam Harris]

Hey Jason,

Ah, that whole issue of hermeunetics. I love it! I think in sense, you are right, Mormons do believe in the Bible. But when the "add ons" come into the picture, they fall back on the Bible being flawed. I don't agree with that. I'm not saying the Bible is completely historically accurate, but you can't take a document like that and discredit it, just because something new that you brought into the picture contradicts with this text you claim you believe in.

Will type more soon, but fingers are cold, hurting, and not moving well anymore. Winter blows. G'night.

[_Sam Harris]

To answer your questions:

Firstly, on a personal level, how do you see the Bible? To me, there is no wrong answer to this question.

Alot of myth and archaic law with some important metaphorical ideas.

[/quote]

Very true. For a long time I could not understand why God kept insisting that the Israelites worship only him. I saw the scripture "I am a jealous God", and just ran with that. This god dude had to be pretty mean...I'll elaborate in a minute.

For those who read in depth, do you see a theme in Old Testament? How do you feel about the idea of the Old Testament being a testament of Christ from beginning to end? If you think that it is, what brought you to that conclusion?

Several themes:

1) Mythology of creation throwing together alot of Middle Eastern stories.
2) The rise of the Jewish people (another sort of creation story)
3) The fall of the Jewish people
4) Some history-Chronicles etc. But very sensationalized (just like other Middle Eastern leader lists i.e. long life cycles, great deeds etc.)[/quote][/quote]

You are right that Near East culture and theology greatly influences the Bible. And I think that's why it's so hard for some people to understand the rationale behind what's going on in it. During the time that the Hebrews were supposedly becoming a "people set apart", they still had to struggle with many, many generations of influence from Near Eastern culture. Example: worshipping only one God. Before and during the Exodus, during the 40 years in the wilderness, and pretty much up to the Exile of both Israel and Judah, the issue of idolatry, household gods, etc. was an issue. Old habits die hard, and I'm still looking at the effect that I guess what amounted to spiritual dualism had on the Hebrew people. I don't think it was as simple as favoring one god and worshipping another. I think that perhaps the Jewish people were blinded to the threat of the nations around them by engaging too much in their culture. But that's just a theory, and theories change.

You're right about the Chronicles. One thing that I liked so much about my Old Testament text, was that they always provided at least two theories on how the books in the Old Testament and the Bible as a whole got to be there. And the book did say that some things were indeed embellished. I was so suprised at this, being that this is being taught at "Pat Robertson's University". I wonder does the man know...but then again accredidation might have rendered his say in the matter obsolete.

The Old Testament isn't a testament of Christ. It's the written mythology and creation story according to the Jewish people. It has many stories that are similar to other Middle Eastern myths and oral traditions. It is highly unsubstantiated in many places.

It contains archaic laws. It has long king lists similar to other Middle Eastern leaders. It has many allegories and metaphors. It contains alot of parables....earthly story, heavenly meaning (or a moral lessons, especially in the New Testament but some lessons in the Old Testament too).

I disagree on the first part, but in only one respect. I think the Old Testament was a testament of the expectation of a Messiah. But you are right that a great deal of what you see in the Old Testament mimics what you see in the Ancient Near East. The influence is undeniable. A good example is that of the vassal treaty. In the Ancient Near East, once you were conquered, you were a vassal, a subordinate nation or group, subservient to a suzerain, or overlord. I'm sure you know this, but in case anyone else is reading, I just added that in there. In Deuteronomy, God himself plays the part of the part of the suzerain as it is written. According to the book I have here at home, Deuteronomy bears resemblance to the vassal treaties of the Near East in the following regard:

1. a preamble introducing the speaker, usually the suzerain, the author of the treaty
2. a historical prologue emphasizing the suzerain's benevolence and authority
3. stipulations detailing what is expected of the vassal
4. a statement regarding the document's display, storage, or terms for its periodic recital
5. a list of witnesses, usually dieties
6. curses or blessings to be effected by the gods according to the perfocumance of the stipulations

A Survey of the Old Testament, Hill and Walton, 1991

You are quite right to point out the Eastern influence within the Bible, and I think seeing it in that context makes it much easier to understand. I had finished Deuteronomy in its entirety long before I took my Old Testament class, and when I started reading about vassal treaties, and how Deuteronomy pretty much mimicked this style of composition, a lot of what I had read fell into place more so for me.

There are some who feel that the Old Testament and New Testament are not interrelated. How do you feel about this?

They're always printed together so I don't see how they're not interrelated. I would guess most people don't see the distinction between the end of the Old Testament and the start of the New Testament testament despite the 500 years or so between them (and all the Apocrapha writings).[/quote][/quote]

I think that some of the apocrypha writings are very interesting, and it is a pity that they were not kept in the original canon. I sometimes wonder what the early rabbinical and later ecumenical councils were thinking when they excluded books from what is now the canon of the Bible. Luckily, many of these things are still in print, and if you want to, you can go and read for yourself what they have to say. I can't wait for the day when I have my own place, and as much space to erect shelves as I want to. :-)

Any theories on the time of silence between the two books? I haven't looked into that yet, and if you have any leads, that'd be great.

The writers of the New Testament, and the authors of the four Gospels especially, how do you feel about their writings? Have you read any of the Gnostic Gospels? What do you think of them?

They are different interpretations of the life of Jesus. They don't provide a cohesive story or the total correct story because there's 4 of them. Not 1. One writer hears an anecdote about Jesus and prints it that another hasn't heard. Plus the writers were writing decades after Jesus's death. I'm sure alot of whitewashing occured during those years as Jesus's myth and legend grew.

Haven't read Gnostics.[/quote]

And you are correct. Though I'm still out on how many centuries passed before the first writings. I'll have to ask a friend on another forum on that one, he posted it once, but it's been so long. I don't think he supported the several centuries theory, however. From what I understand, many "gospels" were thrown out, because they were written so long after Christ's crucifixion.

Was the Council of Nicea truly the first time anyone agreed on the complete biblical canon? How was the Hebrew Bible decided upon?

No one has ever agreed on biblical canon. That's why everyone is always arguing about it and coming up with new interpretations, even today. The Council of Nicea was one groups opinion. But a very important group who produced an even more important opinion.[/quote][/quote]

LOL, I like that! No, no one has ever agreed on biblical canon. Today the argument isn't so much about what belongs in there, as it is about how to interperet it. Thanks for your contribution!

[_Bond...James Bond]

GIMR: I may come back and add more to some of these questions. I kinda rushed through and kind of "winged" my answers. Wanted to comment on this question though. Also wanted to touch on a prior question.

There are some who feel that the Old Testament and New Testament are not interrelated. How do you feel about this?

They're always printed together so I don't see how they're not interrelated. I would guess most people don't see the distinction between the end of the Old Testament and the start of the New Testament testament despite the 500 years or so between them (and all the Apocrapha writings).

I think that some of the apocrypha writings are very interesting, and it is a pity that they were not kept in the original canon. I sometimes wonder what the early rabbinical and later ecumenical councils were thinking when they excluded books from what is now the canon of the Bible. Luckily, many of these things are still in print, and if you want to, you can go and read for yourself what they have to say. I can't wait for the day when I have my own place, and as much space to erect shelves as I want to. :-)

Any theories on the time of silence between the two books? I haven't looked into that yet, and if you have any leads, that'd be great.

The Old Testament didn't fully come into being until AD 90 or so. Which was 60 some odd years after Jesus. Of course their had been prior translations (the Septuagint, which was the Torah in Greek and many many collections by the Jewish scholars) but the Old Testament as awhole came together 600 or so years after the supposed end of the Old Testament (500 BC or so after the return from Babylon with the building of the temple etc).

Personally I wonder if the Old Testament final canonization message of a continued search for the Messiah didn't have something to do with Christ. A sort of political or religious statement when it was canonized of "we see you've found your Messiah, we're still waiting" and that the Old Testament really had some connection to the New Testament by being a rejection of Jesus as the Messiah.

Course I'm probably wrong...just thinking out loud at a late hour. Really that thought just came to me. Back to reality...

The New Testament of course came together much later and was made of books and letters written between AD 50-200 or so. No one agrees on the dates exactly. Anyway....

I see:

the Old Testament as the rise of the Jews and their continued search for the Messiah.
the New Testament as the rise of the Christians and the story of the Messiah and I guess the "New Covenant".

Back to whether they should be considered together? I don't know. Christianity was an off shoot of Judaism, but then again so was Islam. You wonder what would happen if the Koran, New Testament, and Old Testament were printed together what kind of stir it would make. It seems though that the Old Testament and New Testament have a distinctly different flavor. The Old Testament is very archaic with a vengeful God. The New Testament on the other hand has a much more compassionate God and much "nicer" message brought of course by Jesus.

On the Apocrypha:

The Old Testament seems to have the cut off date after the return to Jerusalem and the building of the 2nd Temple. The New Testament didn't start until Jesus came, leaving a very large gap of time when things were happening and things were being written! Just because the Bible stops doesn't mean all thought stops. In fact this is one of the greatest periods (500 BC to 0 AD?) of Mediterrean history from an academic point of view (when Greek science and learning was being thrown together with thousands of years of Mesopotamian and Egyptian data and learning==Hellenistic!!!) and the Jews with their love of learning were most certainly right in the middle of all this.

The scholars didn't know what to do with the "MesoTestament" (Middle Testament, that has to be blasphemy) so they just dumped them altogether and called them apocrypha (which means "hidden" in Greek, a good title in my mind for things that happened in the "Dark Age" between the Old Testament and the New Testament and for stuff that falls outside the main canon)

The Bible wasn't the only thing written during the time and not all books/letters/whatever got into the Bible that needed to. I think of the Apocrypha as sort of an appendixes/reference matter.


Edit: I ended up touching on many things from the previous post. I'll go back and cut the previous relevant material in later. If something doesn't make sense tell me and I'll try to clarify what I was thinking or expound.

Edit: I'm not a biblical expert. I'm a laymen who has put some study into the Bible. These are just my opinions. And they're probably wrong. And I'm going crosseyed right now, so good night!

[_Sam Harris]

Hey Bond,

I undestand late nights and not feeling to well these days. You've brought up some things for me to think about, I'm not sure if my Old Testament class actually touched on when the Old Testament canon was actually finalized.

And the ideas on the "Middle Testament", and your point that this period of time was actually a renaissance within Mediterranian thought at that time is interesting. I want to look into that more, myself. I think that the Gnostic gospels have a lot to teach us, and you are right, just because the Bible has a set canon doesn't mean that thought is over. I think that the "hidden" gospels actually delve much deeper into the human mind than our traditional Christian/Jewish canon. The Bible deals with how to act on most levels. But how about how to think? Jesus touched on an inner kingdom and an inner life, but Christians haven't gone that far with the idea.

I'll never forget the History Channel special I watched that said that Islam, Judaism, and Christianity were all Abrahamic faiths, in essence worshipping the same God, but from different perspectives. That was so exciting for me, but at the same time, I don't understand the conflict in the Middle East on a spiritual platform. I mean, radical Islam has brought Allah into the picture, but I think that the problem is more about land and grudges than it is about God. But then again, the Jewish idea of the "promised land" should be inspected further. I think that's why the US backed Israel as a independent state first, they were looking at it from a Christian perspective, back in what was it, 47? The political leaders of that time saw what happened with the rise of the Israeli nation as fulfillment of prophecy. And look what we have now. And yet people wonder why Islam has so many problems with us.

The Koran tells its own version of the Eden story. I read through it once, I need to get another version. But I want one of those pretty hard-bound texts like my neighbors across the street have.

Ach, I have to work now. Come back later.

[_Bond...James Bond]

GIMR:

Something I forgot to mention. When I said the "cutoff" date for the Old Testament was 500 BC I didn't want to suggest I think all the Old Testament books were written before 500 BC. An example is the Book of Daniel, which in my mind is a pretty clear allegory written during the reign of the Seleucid King Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 BC). The book harkens back to Babylon (much as Revelation does, except there it's an allegory of the Roman Empire) as a bad place, but only as a way to show the distaste for their Greek overlords of the day in a sneaky way (so they didn't get thrown into a lions den themselves!). It is a good example to show people that there's more going on in the Bible than meets the eye, and that the Bible was written as much for those people back then as for people today.

Edit:

I think studying the background history is always important because the Bible wasn't written in a vacuum! People seem to think that, but there's a lot more stuff going on than the writing of one book. People seem to think the Jewish state (David and Solomon and such) was some great kingdom, but in the grand scheme of things that kingdom only came about because of a semi-collapse by the real powers (Assyria, Egypt, Babylon, etc). Once those main powers got their acts together they stomped out the upstart kingdoms (including Israel and Judah!). For anyone else reading this, please don't just study the Bible. To get a real picture of history look at the whole picture and put together the whole puzzle, the Bible is just one piece.

Bond

[_KerryAShirts]

GIMR:
It is my opinion that there are some parts of the LDS faith and also Conservative Christianity that are simply not biblical. They are "doctrines of men", taken from a misreading/misinterpretation of biblical scripture, and blown way out of proportion.

Kerry:
I know I am ultra late to this, (but I just got back on these boards today, so please forgive) but my initial thought was, I can also find this to be the case in Christianity, so what? I'm honestly not trying to be a smart alec about it either. We don't worship the Bible, and don't hold it on infallible authority, so this approach doesn't really damage Mormonism, if that is what it intends to do...........

[_bcspace]

It is my opinion that there are some parts of the LDS faith and also Conservative Christianity that are simply not biblical.

In my opinion, there is nothing in LDS doctrine that contradicts the Bible. As far as the Biblicalness of LDS doctrine, I think most if not all is expressly or implicitly found in the Bible. On top of that, since the Bible does not claim to be the only and complete word of God AND the Bible refers to other works not contained therein AND because the Bible refers to future scripture and future true prophets, there is no requirement whatsoever to limit scripture to the Bible alone.

Perhaps you could tell us which parts of LDS doctrine you think are not Biblical or that contradict the Bible?

The idea of Temple worship in the early Christian church, where is the evidence for this?

We could start with Hebrews 10:20 as a scriptural basis for temple worship.

I hear the argument that the temple is no longer necessary because the veil was rent. But in 10:20 we see what the veil represents, the flesh of Christ. Now it is true that Christ died hence the rending of the veil in Matthew 27:51, but Christ is also resurrected and therefore we must follow through. That is, the veil is symbolically repaired. This symbolizes the continuation of the need for a temple AND as we can see in Hebrews 10:20, the ordinances are new as well.

Because of what the veil represents, the temple is not replaced by Jesus' Atonement. The rending and repairing simply signifies that everything the law of Moses was pointing to is fulfilled and now, to remind us of the flesh of Christ which was sacrificed, we continue to proceed through the new veil.

[_Sam Harris]

BCSpace, you really don't want a discussion, what you want is a validation of your faith. If you want to be LDS, and believe your faith is the only correct and true faith, fine. But don't go toe to toe with people who are making a living out of studying that which you have spoon fed in a regurgitated form to you.

There were no temples in early Christianity. Sorry. And the Bible is true so long as it's correctly translated and doesn't contradict your LDS doctrine. I should do a blog on that, those scriptures that completely contradict LDS teachings that folks like you just brush under the rug...