I have no problem with your answer. The reason I asked the question was that here was a seemingly huge contradiction between one book of the NT and another, but that it wasn’t all that difficult to reconcile those differences so that they are understood. The same can be said for almost all the NT 'internal contradictions."
The reason I used it was that, just as Janet uses the “at Jerusalem/in Bethlehem” 'contradiction" as somehow proof positive that these two books ARE contradictory, so do many non-believers use the two genealogies to ‘prove’ that the NT is false.
In both cases, there is a perfectly logical and reasonable reconciliation that eliminates the problem. In fact, the “at Jerusalem/in Bethlehem” question is answered so well that it actually supports the BoM, rather than detracts from it. Turns out that the BoM reference to 'at Jerusalem" is precisely the proper language use for someone not from that area.
When she can find a ‘contradiction’ that we do NOT have a perfectly reasonable and logical explanation for, THEN she can crow…but if she will not even go look to see if we have one, that’s going to cause a hitch in the debate, and a pretty big credibility drop, seems to me.
Ok thanks for the explanation =)
I agree when dealing with the Bible things that
seem contradictory usually have simple answers. I think this whole exercise of “choosing Bible or book of Mormon” is ultimately futile. I understand the reasons why someone would pose a question like this. A Catholic can read Mormon teaching and see that Mormons believe that the Bible, though the word of God, can be translated incorrectly. This leads one to believe that if something said in book of Mormon
seems contradictory to something in the Bible and this contradiction is not so easily answered, the safest place to be would be the book of Mormon over something in the Bible, that could be saying the same thing, just translated incorrectly at that time.
Anyway the last few pages of this thread have been unenlightening and pointless in my opinion. What does it matter if Mormons would choose the book of Mormon over the Bible? (big surprise) but this would not discredit or disprove anything the book of Mormon says or what it teaches.
Diana just imagine with me, if you will, that a new church was formed with new sacred scripture to add to the Mormon canon. You, a Mormon, can see glaring inconsistencies with what is in your canon compared to this new scripture, the troglodyte manual. Those Troggies say that their manual is true and isn’t tainted by “man” but straight from God and any
seeming contradictions that there may be, the manual must take precedence as it is more divine over man made.
A terrible analogy but you would be close to what Catholics feel. If one believes that they have the full Truth and receive revelation from God, how can another group separate from that one have an even fuller Truth that is completely at odds, not “contradictions” in scripture, but contradictions in practice and belief then the one before?
How do you answer these sort of questions? You ask your own questions and explore. That is how you gain knowledge. Some questions are better then others I suppose. Thanks for playing.
