QUESTION: 3 “According to the statement found in The Articles of
Faith, verse 8, “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is
translated correctly,..” Since this verse puts into question the trustworthiness and
accuracy of the Bible, my question to the first half of this verse is: In what
way has the Word of God been translated unfaithfully and incorrectly in regards
to affecting the overall message of God's Word, the Holy Bible? Why do you
believe this?” Now the second half of verse 8 reads, “We also believe
the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.” My question to this is: Do you
have any substantial archaeological evidence to both confirm and prove the
accuracy and divine inspiration of the Book of Mormon? If so, I would
appreciate -in your own words- documented evidences of this. Thank you.”
Mormon Response 1: “We believe the Bible to be the
word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of
Mormon to be the word of God.” (Articles of Faith, v. 8).
1.
THE
HOLY BIBLE.
Elder M. Russell Ballard, an
apostle of the church said this, “Latter-day
saints love and honor the Holy Bible
as the word of God. We read it, we study it, and we teach from it. Our lives
are enriched by the powerful stories and messages of the Old and New
Testaments. However, we are also aware that the Bible has been through
countless translations from the time its chapters were originally penned to the
present. Along the way, there have been changes and alterations that have
diminished the purity of the doctrine. While it is indeed a miracle that the
Bible has survived through the ages at all, it would be unreasonable to assume
that it was done so completely intact. That is why members of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are so thankful for the additional insights,
revelations, and inspiration contained in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and
Covenants, and Pearl
An example of possible mistranslation of the Bible:[2]
Thus we see that perhaps over time the Bible may have lost some of
its full potential when originally penned. I love the Bible, and I'm truly
grateful for the beautiful teachings that are contained in its pages. It is
truly a miracle that the Bible still exists over the thousands of years of
history.
2.
THE
BOOK OF MORMON.
The best evidence out there containing evidence to the Book
of Mormon is the ancient ruins found in the Americas Moroni
Yours truly:
Sean Hill.
Mormon Response
2: The overall message of the Bible is that Jesus is the
Christ; he atoned for our sins and lives now by way of the
resurrection. And it is through him, his actions, merits, principles, and
doctrine that we can gain eternal life. *This is unchanged.
1.
THE
HOLY BIBLE.
Thus we see that power of our Heavenly Father is needed in all
things pertaining to him and his plan for us.
2.
THE
BOOK OF MORMON.
For the evidence of the validity of the Book of Mormon, see the
testimony of the three and eight witnesses and the testimony of the Prophet of
the Restoration, Joseph Smith. (Found at the beginning of the Book of Mormon).
And for the reasoning and design and purpose of this, see 2 Nephi Chapter 27.
For personal
understanding, see the Lord in personal, sincere prayer.
Yours truly:
Ben Williams.
Christian
Response: Thank you Sean and Ben for taking the time to
respond to the question at the beginning of this paper. As
promised, in the next few pages is my response to what you both had written. I
trust the Lord will teach us something of the accuracy and trustworthiness of
His Holy Word, the Bible. Also, is the Book of Mormon truly inspired of God? Is
it truly another Testament of Jesus Christ as claimed? Let us explore together
the answers to these questions as it relates to the Question at the beginning
of this article.
1.
IS THE BIBLE RELIABLE?
Mormon apostle, J. Reuben Clark once said “If we
have the truth, [it] cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the
truth, it ought to be harmed.”[3]
Since you have the “truth,” then there should be no “harm” in me investigating
such claims. Either the Bible is true or the book of Mormon is. There is no
middle ground here. Now having said that, let's begin by considering this part
of Apostle Ballard's quote that puts into question the Bible: “However, we are also aware that the Bible has been through countless
translations from the time its chapters were originally penned to the present.
Along the way, there have been changes and alterations that have diminished the
purity of the doctrine. While it is indeed a miracle that the Bible has
survived through the ages at all, it would be unreasonable to assume that it
was done so completely intact.” Missionary Nick
Novakovich further confirms Apostle Ballard’s statement, when he wrote, “None of us can know exactly what the Bible really teaches, because
it has been translated so many different times. Even if you go back to the
Greek and Hebrew text, confusion can still arise. “We do
believe that the Bible was written under the influence of the spirit, and we do
believe the Bible to be the Word of God as far as it is translated correctly” (Articles of Faith, v. 8).”
Is this true? Has the Bible now been corrupted through
countless translations from the time of its inception to the present? It is
safe to assume that the original autographs[4] of the Holy
Scriptures were without error. Now that leaves the question, what about the
modern translations of the Bible? Do they contain errors? Has the Bible been
changed and altered in such a way that the purity of doctrine has been
diminished and compromised since its original translations?
To begin with, there are over 160 supposed translations of the
Bible in English, of which less than a dozen or so can be classified as actual
translations. That means most of them are only paraphrases or commentaries of
the Word of God. They are not literal translations of the Holy Scriptures. For
example: The Message and the NLT are considered to be paraphrases; whereas, the
KJV, NKJV, NASB, Darby Trans., and the ESV are considered to be word for word
translations.
It is important
to note that the methods employed to copy or translate the Holy Scriptures were
not done carelessly by scholars. The translation of the Word of God was done
with the utmost care and precision beyond that of any other book. Why is that?
Because God's Word is a divine book, and God is well able to preserve his Word
as we have it in today's word for word translations. The evidence for the
reliability of the Bible can be seen in the “Scriptural Copy Rules.”
“The scribes were required to adhere to
very precise rules. Their discipline was ingrained into them through their
years of training. The many rules used by Old Testament scribes included the
following:
1.
A
synagogue roll must be written on the skins of clean animals,
2.
Prepared
for the particular use of the synagogue by a Jew.
3.
These
must be fastened together with strings taken from clean animals.
4.
Every skin must contain a certain number of columns, equal throughout
the entire codex.
5.
The
length of each column must not extend over less than 48 or more than 60 lines;
and the breadth must consist of thirty letters.
6.
The
whole copy must be first-lined; and if three words be written without a line,
it is worthless.
7.
The
ink should be black, neither red, green, nor any other color, and be prepared
according to a definite recipe.
8.
An
authentic copy must be the exemplar, from which the transcriber ought not in
the least deviate.
9.
No
word or letter, not even a yod, must be written from memory, the scribe not
having looked at the codex before him...
10.
Between
every consonant the space of a hair or thread must intervene;
11.
between
every new parashah, or section, the breadth of nine consonants;
12.
Between
every book, three lines.
13.
The
fifth book of Moses must terminate exactly with a line; but the rest need not
do so.
14.
Besides
this, the copyist must sit in full Jewish dress,
15.
wash
his whole body,
16.
not
begin to write the name of God with a pen newly dipped in ink,
17.
And
should a king address him while writing that name he must take no notice of
him.
Apart from these special requirements were
the basic scribal rules. The word scribes literally means counters. To verify the accuracy of every scroll that was copied, they had
several items that were counted. They counted every letter and compared it to
the master scroll. They counted the number of words. And as a final crosscheck,
they would count through each scroll to the halfway point and compare the
letter with the “halfway letter” of the master scroll. Hence, the precision of the Old Testament
scribes (and even a few New Testament “professional” copyists) was enormous. It
is far different than we might expect in today's world.”[5]
As we can see from the above quote, pin point precision and
accuracy was employed in the translation of the Word of God. Perhaps you are
thinking, “Alright, but that was the methods employed by ancient translators
who copied and translated the ancient manuscripts. It’s the modern translations
of the Bible I have a problem with.” Hey, I do to. As I already mentioned,
there are over 160 English versions of the Bible, and most of them are not
literal translations, only a handful is.
They are the literal or word for word translations. (See KJV, NKJV,
NASB, Darby, ESV, etc.).
So what about the modern translations? Have modern translations
been corrupted through countless translations that have been changed and
altered to the point of diminishing the purity of its doctrine? So can we
really know what the Bible teaches despite the fact it’s been translated so
many times as you guys suggested in your responses? Well, I already showed the
meticulous precision the ancient Jewish scribes used in copying and translating
the Holy Scriptures. It is important to note that there are over 5,600 Greek
manuscripts in existence. Josh McDowell in his book “The New Evidence that
Demands a Verdict” gives this assessment on all of the manuscripts.
“The following is a
breakdown of the number of surviving manuscripts for the New Testament:
Extant
Greek Manuscripts:
Uncials...............................307
Minuscules......................2,860
Lectionaries....................2,410
Papri..................................109
SUBTOTAL...................5,686
Manuscripts in Other Languages:
Latin
Vulgate.................................10,000+
Ethiopic...........................................2,000+
Slavic...............................................4,101
Armenian.........................................2,587
Syriac
Pashetta....................................350+
Bohairic...............................................100
Arabic...................................................75
Old
Latin...............................................50
Anglo
Saxon...........................................7
Gothic.....................................................6
Sogdian...................................................3
Old
Syriac...............................................2
Persian.....................................................2
Frankish...................................................1
SUBTOTAL....................................19,284
The evidence for the existence of
the New Testament manuscripts is overwhelming. No other ancient writing by
pagan authors has near as much manuscripts in existence. “The Iliad, which is second
to the New Testament in manuscript authority, has only 643 manuscripts in
existence. Jewish scholar Jacob Klausner says, “If we had ancient sources like
those in the Gospels for the history of Alexander or Caesar, we should not cast
any doubt upon them what so ever.”[7] Indeed, this
shows God's divine hand of preservation on His Word. No other ancient
manuscript can claim this. Yet, still many today question the reliability of
the Bible without questioning the reliability of other ancient writings. Again,
Josh McDowell quoting from F.F. Bruce makes this statement.
“No classical scholar would listen to an argument that the
authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest
manuscripts of their works which are of use to us are over 1, 300 years later
than the originals.”[8]
Yet we have in our possession ancient Biblical copies of
manuscripts that are dated within 50 to 300 years of the first century church!
Again, no other ancient classical writing can claim this! I could give more
examples, but the above quote is sufficient to prove the point I am making. If
you guys desire more proof, I will document some sources for further study at the
end of this paper.
Now as for your comment Ben, in regards to the translation
of the Bible; you made this statement, “However, we do know and all
agree that there are many translations of the Bible. That which is in question
is not the Bible, but rather the translation thereof. When something is
translated by men, small things can be lost in the complexity of linguistic
differences, slang, and other related difficulties of language. Although these
things were small, this cannot change the significance of them. With the loss
of these small yet significant items, small parts of the message are changed
along the way. Yet the Bible still testifies of Jesus being the Christ. But
without the fullness of the message, how are we to know the fullness of the way?”
Concerning the reliability of the Old Testament John Ankerberg and
John Weldon has this insightful comment on the matter.
“The Old Testament was also incredibly preserved, and its
overall historical accuracy has been factually confirmed, as illustrated in
scholarly texts such as K.A. Kitchen's On the
Reliability of the Old Testament (2003) and
Walter C. Kaiser's The Old Testament Documents: Are They
Reliable and Relevant? (2001). For example, a detailed
comparison of the Qumran and Massoretic Old Testament texts reveal, in the
words of Dr. Ron Rhodes, “they are essentially the same, with very few
changes,” despite more than 1000 years of copying (www.ronrhodes.org/manuscript.html).
The fact that manuscripts separated by a thousand years are essentially the
same indicates the incredible accuracy of the Old Testament's manuscript
transmission. Indeed, if the Bible were simply an assortment of secular
writings, no fair-minded scholar in the world would suggest its textual
unreliability.”[9]
So even after a thousand years
apart, the Qumran Old Testament text and the Massoretic Old Testament text,
when compared, they were essentially the same. Another important fact is that
both Jesus and the apostles quote extensively from the Old Testament. Hence,
confirming its reliability. Now in regards to the Bible as a whole, we have
over 24, 000 manuscripts to confirm the reliability of our modern Bible
translations. The fact there is such an abundance of ancient Scripture texts to
look to for translation purposes, mistakes, corruption and changes can easily
be corrected in our modern translations. In fact, comparisons have been done
between the more reliable modern translations with the ancient manuscripts to
confirm accuracy. Like the above example of the Qumran
and Massoretic texts, they are essentially the same. Ben, your comment “When something is
translated by men, small things can be lost in the complexity of linguistic
differences, slang, and other related difficulties of language. Although these
things were small, this cannot change the significance of them. With the loss
of these small yet significant items, small parts of the message are changed
along the way.” I believe here you are referring to what is called
“variants.” Biblical variants or to be more precise, textual variants are
whenever you have alternative wordings. In other words, if you are going to
translate a Greek word into English, it may require a few English words to
convey the full meaning. That is why most good Bible versions today have
alternative words in the margins for certain words in the text. Again, quoting
from Josh McDowell, he has this to say about textual variants.
“By far the most significant category of variants is
spelling differences. The name John, for example, may be spelled with one n or
with two. Clearly, a variation of this sort in no way jeopardizes the meaning
of the text. Spelling differences account for roughly 75 percent of all
variants. That's between 225, 000 and 300, 000 of all the variants! Another
large category of variants consists of the synonyms used across manuscripts.
For instance, some manuscripts may refer to Jesus by his proper name, while others
may say “Lord” or “he.” Such differences hardly call the meaning of the text
into question. When all variations are considered, roughly one percent involves
the meaning of the text. But even this fact can be overstated. For instance,
there is disagreement about whether 1 John 1: 4 should be translated, “Thus we
are writing these things so that our joy may be complete” or “Thus we are
writing these things so that your joy may be complete.” While this disagreement
does involve the meaning of the passage, it in no way jeopardizes a central
doctrine of the Christian faith. This is why the authors of Reinventing Jesus
conclude, “The short answer to the question of what theological truths are at
stake in these variants is—none.”[10]
Sean, you attempted to show an
example of a possible Biblical contradiction between Isaiah
9:1 and Matthew 4:14-15 .
A simple observation of the context of Isaiah 9:1-2
and Matthew 4:14-15 will reveal
that it is not a contradiction, but rather a condensation that is evident here.
John W. Haley makes this comment on these verses. “Here is no contradiction,
but a condensation. The fifteenth verse of Matthew is not so much a quotation,
as an allusion, designed to arrest the attention of the reader, and prepare the
way for the quotation proper.”[11]
I will end this section on the
reliability of the Bible by quoting two well known Scripture texts that affirm
the reliability of the Bible by the apostles Paul and Peter.
“All
scripture is given by inspiration [God breathed] of God, and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of
God may be perfect [mature], thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Tim. 3:16-17,
KJV).
“Knowing
this first that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God
spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (2 Peter 1:20-21, KJV).
I have only really begun to skim the
surface of the vast amount of evidences for the reliability of the Bible. The
evidences I could have drawn from are historical, testimonial, archaeological,
and prophetical. I have attempted to give a little from some of these areas of
evidences.
I was
surprised that there were no examples given of why you think the Bible contains
errors. One attempt was made by citing the supposed discrepancy between Isaiah 9:1 and Matthew
4:14-15 . Other than that, you both give general statements
of the supposed errors of the Bible by using such terms as follows... “[corrupted],
altered, and changed over countless translations, until the purity of the
doctrine is diminished.” Yet, there was no attempt on your part to prove this
assumption, other than the supposed problem between Isaiah
9:1 and Matthew 4:14-15 .
Now, what about
the reliability of the Book of Mormon?
[1] M. Russell
Ballard, Our Search for Happiness, pg. 91.
[2] Perhaps it can be
better put: “An example of a Biblical contradiction:” I am supposing the author
is trying to give an example of a Biblical contradiction between Isaiah 9:1 and
Matthew 4:14-15.
[3] J. Reuben Clark.
Quoted in D. Michael Quinn, J. Reuben Clark: The Church Years, (Provo, UT: BYU Press, 1983), pg. 24.
[4] The original
documents written by the hand of the apostles themselves.
[5] Ralph O.
Muncaster, Examine the Evidence: Exploring
the Case for Christianity, (Harvest House Publishers, Eugene , Oregon
[6] Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, (Thomas
Nelson Publishers, Nashville, 1999), pg. 34.
[7] Josh McDowell, More Than a Carpenter, (Tyndale House
Publishers, Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois, Updated 2009), pg. 74.
[8] Josh McDowell, More Than a Carpenter, pg. 71.
[9] John Ankerberg
& John Weldon, The Facts on Why You can Believe the Bible, (Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon, 2004), pgs. 20-21.
[10] Josh McDowell, More Than a Carpenter, (Tyndale House
Publishers, Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois, Updated 2009), pgs. 76-77.
[11] John W. Haley, Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, (Whitaker
House, Springdale, PA, 1992), pg. 151.
No comments:
Post a Comment