Mormons - What degree of reliability do you give to the Bible?

[dianaiad]

There is one God. Different religious groups have different ideas and views on the nature of God, but there isn’t a separate god for each religion. It’s not like one god made Mormons, one made Catholics, a different god made the Jews, another one made Muslims, etc.

Absolutely!

Which is why it’s a good idea to respect the Deity–even when you are criticizing the description.

 

[LongJourney]

Mormon teachings about their god are very different from that of other religions. Note the source.

Hand in hand with the doctrine that man is eternal came Joseph Smith’s teachings about the creation of the world. While others taught that God created the world ex nihilo (out of nothing), he taught that God formed the earth from material that already existed. In defining creation as “organization,” the Prophet made a distinct contribution to our understanding of the nature of physical matter and bodies, the attributes of God, and the purposes of this mortal existence.

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=b79b27cd3f37b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

Genesis doesn’t say that!!!

 

[SteveVH]

Reminds me of the story of the 5 blind men and the elephant.
Each man touched a different part of the elephant and claimed an elephant is very much like a: 1) snake, 2) tree, 3) wall, 4) rope, 5) spear. Each description is defferent from the other, but still about the same object. They can’t all be right, can they?

We all have a different point of view/reference of God. While we may all disagree, we are still referencing the same God. When someone insults my God, they insult their own too.

What is needed is someone who can see to tie all those descriptions together.
We claim to have a Seer.

I like the story and believe it is applicable in this instance, but not in the way you think. We are certainly blind on our own, but the truth of the nature of God has been revealed to us fully in the person of Jesus Christ.

"For in him dwells the whole fullness of the deity bodily…" (Col 2:9)

We no longer have to stumble around blind, taking our best guess as to who God is. Our God has revealed himself to us, fully. This revelation has been given to his Church who then gave the world his written word in Sacred Scripture. Some still choose to to touch only parts of him and are fooled into believing that he is something other than he really is, just as the blind men in your story.

Blessings.

 

[LongJourney]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=494685

Ex nihilo, anyone?

 

[dianaiad]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=494685

Ex nihilo, anyone?

Where in that did you get the idea that the writer was behind the idea of ex-nihilo?

Or against it, for that matter?

Seems to me that this post was arguing both sides–and defeating both.

 

[Stephen168]

So the Purpose of the Bible is:

LDS read the New Testament for its account of the birth, ministry, atonement, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Christs’ teachings in the New Testament comprise the core of LDS doctrine.

But is seems like Dianaiad does not think it is reliable in teaching about the birth of Christ

Come to think of it, we don’t really know the exact words she actually used, do we? Nobody witnessed this except the angel and Mary. Who DID write that script?

Is her lack of confidence on the reliability of the Bible typical of most Mormons?

 

[flyonthewall]

I like the story and believe it is applicable in this instance, but not in the way you think. We are certainly blind on our own, but the truth of the nature of God has been revealed to us fully in the person of Jesus Christ.

"For in him dwells the whole fullness of the deity bodily…" (Col 2:9)

We no longer have to stumble around blind, taking our best guess as to who God is. Our God has revealed himself to us, fully. This revelation has been given to his Church who then gave the world his written word in Sacred Scripture. Some still choose to to touch only parts of him and are fooled into believing that he is something other than he really is, just as the blind men in your story.

Blessings.

In this we agree, but it goes back to what meaning we pull out of those words that were written down.

 

[SteveVH]

In this we agree, but it goes back to what meaning we pull out of those words that were written down.

Yes it does.

 

[Todd520]

So the Purpose of the Bible is:
But is seems like Dianaiad does not think it is reliable in teaching about the birth of Christ

Is her lack of confidence on the reliability of the Bible typical of most Mormons?

Hi Stephen,
As stated, we believe there are “errors” in translation that can lead to minor or even significant errors in modern interpretation (man is the weak link)

The use of ‘until’ in Matt 1:25 using contemporary english clearly means something different to me than was stated in Greek verse. Whether you blame it on translation or my interpretation, it’s still a problem evident to many readers

I also think the Luke passage is unclear in the modern translation, so I too question what Mary actually said (or what the original greek meaning was of this scripture). I see the logic of her surprise implying PV, but pieces are missing to make it a complete and cohesive idea.

And I must contrast these issues with the concept of Virgin Birth, which is explicit and repeated throughout the gospels, leaving no doubt for any christian.

 

[flyonthewall]

Mormon teachings about their god are very different from that of other religions. Note the source.

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=b79b27cd3f37b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

Genesis doesn’t say that!!!

What exactly does Genesis say?
Here is the first day:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first dday.

Is verse 1 a synopsis of the creation?
Is verse 2 after that creation or before?
If verse 2 was before the creation, then the earth was created from existing material. If it is after the creation, why did God not create a fully functioning earth from nothing?

Tell us, what exactly does Genesis say? Be clear and precise, use language that cannot be read with any other meaning than the one you intended.

 

[Stephen168]

Hi Stephen,
As stated, we believe there are “errors” in translation that can lead to minor or even significant errors in modern interpretation (man is the weak link)

So the Mormon Church would consider the Bible unreliable because it does not fulfill its purpose due to errors. Does the Mormon Church have a list of the errors?

 

[SteveVH]

Hi Stephen,
As stated, we believe there are “errors” in translation that can lead to minor or even significant errors in modern interpretation (man is the weak link)

The use of ‘until’ in Matt 1:25 using contemporary english clearly means something different to me than was stated in Greek verse. Whether you blame it on translation or my interpretation, it’s still a problem evident to many readers

I also think the Luke passage is unclear in the modern translation, so I too question what Mary actually said (or what the original greek meaning was of this scripture). I see the logic of her surprise implying PV, but pieces are missing to make it a complete and cohesive idea.

And I must contrast these issues with the concept of Virgin Birth, which is explicit and repeated throughout the gospels, leaving no doubt for any christian.

And this is precisely why Christ started his Church and sent the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth. When you are apart from his Church, you are left on your own to sort it out and it isn’t easy, as evidenced by the thousands of different denominations each claiming to have the correct interpretation. It is why an authoritative, infallible Church is a necessary compliment to the inerrant truth found in Sacred Scripture which is comprised of many books, written by many people over several thousand years, in a different language and in a different culture. It is far from plain and simple, as evidenced by this conversation.

 

[LongJourney]

Create:

to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/create This all happened on the first day. Temporal sequence does not matter, since this was His first action.

In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth,
2
2 the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters.
3
Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
4
God saw how good the light was. God then separated the light from the darkness.
5
3 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” Thus evening came, and morning followed–the first day.

And on the second day, the water separated from the air.

Then God said, "Let there be a dome in the middle of the waters, to separate one body of water from the other." And so it happened:

7
God made the dome, and it separated the water above the dome from the water below it.
8
God called the dome “the sky.” Evening came, and morning followed–the second day.

The sky is blue, water is blue, therefore the dome above us must be made of water. We now know that this is primitive “science.” Science trumps scripture. Scripture NEVER leads us astray in how to live our lives, so long as we interpret in the way God meant it. (hint hint)

The difference between ex nihilo and JS is the definition of “create” JS did not use anything like a dictionary. After all, he “created” the BoM from bits and pieces of other manuscripts. That is two different definitions, remember that LDS play games with semantics all the time, redefining words to match their agenda. Since anything other than ex nihilo limits God, the JS theory leads us astray because it limits God. The proof of God is “first cause”

I am not a scholar of the original Latin and Hebrew languages, so unless someone comes up with something better, describing the original meaning, we will have to believe that the traditional meaning is the right one.

 

[JHow]

What exactly does Genesis say?..

The posters point was that Mormon teaching on creation is very different from other religions. He supported it with a link to an article that does present what can fairly be called a “different view”.

I read the linked article. With regard to creation, it appears to mostly rely on Mormon revelation to support its thesis. To that extent, it removes a large portion of the article’s contents from any debate you would propose over the meaning of Genesis.

Without ranging far off topic (a real danger here), you seem upset over the poster’s interpretation. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but if your point is that Genesis does not explicitly say the God created everyting out of nothing, you are correct. But neither does it say explicitly that God “organized” existing stuff into everything we see today.

 

[flyonthewall]

The posters point was that Mormon teaching on creation is very different from other religions. He supported it with a link to an article that does present what can fairly be called a “different view”.

I read the linked article. With regard to creation, it appears to mostly rely on Mormon revelation to support its thesis. To that extent, it removes a large portion of the article’s contents from any debate you would propose over the meaning of Genesis.

Without ranging far off topic (a real danger here), you seem upset over the poster’s interpretation. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but if your point is that Genesis does not explicitly say the God created everyting out of nothing, you are correct. But neither does it say explicitly that God “organized” existing stuff into everything we see today.

Exactly…and the point is that the language used is open ended. It does not specify one way over another, and either way can be argued for.
If we had the words used in its original context in the original language, it would shed more light on the meaning.
Translating from one language to another is an art, not a science. Words from one language and culture can carry nuanced meaning that are lost in translation.

The way I see it, the manner of creation is really not that important an issue, but was just used as an example of how interpretations can veer from the original intent. We have the exact same words being read and two different meanings are derived from it. Now, if you have ever played the game of “Telephone” you will understand how easy it is for words and and meanings can go astray.

PS - I was not upset about his interpretation of it, as I can see how he came to that conclusion.

 

[flyonthewall]

Create:
dictionary.reference.com/browse/create This all happened on the first day. Temporal sequence does not matter, since this was His first action.

And on the second day, the water separated from the air.

The sky is blue, water is blue, therefore the dome above us must be made of water. We now know that this is primitive “science.” Science trumps scripture. Scripture NEVER leads us astray in how to live our lives, so long as we interpret in the way God meant it. (hint hint)

The difference between ex nihilo and JS is the definition of “create” JS did not use anything like a dictionary. After all, he “created” the BoM from bits and pieces of other manuscripts. That is two different definitions, remember that LDS play games with semantics all the time, redefining words to match their agenda. Since anything other than ex nihilo limits God, the JS theory leads us astray because it limits God. The proof of God is “first cause”

I am not a scholar of the original Latin and Hebrew languages, so unless someone comes up with something better, describing the original meaning, we will have to believe that the traditional meaning is the right one.

I have done some searching around the internet and have found the the word translated as “created” is the hebrew word “bara”.
Here is one thing I have found from a “Christian Leadership Center” website. I have absolutely no idea wether they are Catholic or not, but it is interesting:

christianleadershipcenter.org/Bara.htm
The word bara’ is used exclusively for the activity of God in which he fashions something new and pristine. The word could be used for creating something out of nothing, but that emphasis must come from the context and not from the meaning of this word (and the Bible does in many places teach that creation was originally out of nothing).

    **  Bara’ Includes the ideas of creating, shaping, forming, and transforming. Its emphasis lies in the fact that what is produced is new and fresh and good and perfect. It does not produce something imperfect or incomplete. While many English words could be used in the translations, “create” still serves very well because its connotations have been elevated by association with the Creator. We tend to use the word “create” to refer to a work of art, a masterpiece, something new and wonderful. For all the ordinary things, or inferior things, “make” serves very well.**

Notice that this is from a group that believes in creation ex-nihilo, but even they state that the emphasis of “out of nothing” does not come from the word itself. And of course if there is already a belief of creation out of nothing, then that context will be inserted.

 

[JHow]

Philosophically (and I am not a philosopher), I thought the way you get to creation out of nothing is from the argument that God created ALL things (for which idea you can reference a number of NT texts). You then argue backwards until you run out of SOMEthing to create from and are left with nothing.

I recall reading this once: St. Augustine Confessions Book 11 Chpt 5:

newadvent.org/fathers/110111.htm

I also think that that human language is a limited tool to describe an unlimited God. We have difficulty imagining nothing - even the empty, gasless space between planets and stars isn’t really nothing if it has distance and time. If you read the above mention, you might also continue on to around Chpt 13 in th elink above, where Augustine wonders about the creation of time.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yes, there must be a first mover and a first cause. LDS do not have or seem to understand this concept.

Certainly, all of Christianity has no problem saying God created or made all things. Where LDS philosophy fails, is the claim of existing matter. They can’t answer the question, WHO or WHAT created this existing matter?

All of Christianity, Judaism and even Islam have the same answer: GOD.

 

[Todd520]

So the Mormon Church would consider the Bible unreliable because it does not fulfill its purpose due to errors. Does the Mormon Church have a list of the errors?

Stephen, I don’t recall anyone stating Mormon’s consider the Bible unreliable or unable to fulfill its purpose.
Saying the bible is not perfect does not say it is without purpose or merit. I carry the bible with me to ‘service’ every Sunday

 

[PaulDupre]

Stephen, I don’t recall anyone stating Mormon’s consider the Bible unreliable or unable to fulfill its purpose.

Well, Todd, you haven’t been LDS for very long.

From the Book of Mormon:

1 Nephi 13:
24 And the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou hast beheld that the book proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record; and they bear record according to the truth which is in the Lamb of God.

25 Wherefore, these things go forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God.

26 And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.

27 And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.

28 Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.

29 And after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and after it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles, yea, even across the many waters which thou hast seen with the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, thou seest—because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God—because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them.

The above passage claims that the bible we have now is not the same bible written by the prophets and apostles. Many of the “plain and precious parts” were taken away by the “great and abominable Church”. Why? "that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.

Verse 29 states that those who believe the bible with the plain and precious parts deliberately removed by the great and abominable church stumble so that Satan has great power over them.