LDS The Reliability of the Bible

Yodas_Prodigy1 said:

Why should we believe that the Bible is in any way in error or unreliable ("not translated correctly”)?

There are tens of thousands of manuscripts of scripture dating back to the second century. Additionally, the Church Fathers quoted scripture liberally. Between these two very large sources of scripture, the Bible is found to be very reliable. Dr. Dan Wallace from Dallas Theological Seminary is a great resource on Textual Criticism. A person may learn Koine Greek easily with the numerous seminaries and on-line classes. The thought that the Bible was translated from its native languages to Latin then English, or into other languages before English is not representative of the facts.

With the amount of data out there, textual critics are able to put together within about 0.5 % the actual autographs of the New Testament. Those scriptures that are questionable are documented as so within the Bibles, such as the woman caught in adultery and a significant portion of Mark 16.

There are tens of thousands of manuscripts as well as a liberal amount of quoting of scripture by the Church Fathers.

Regarding the Old Testament, we have the reliability of the Jewish copyists. And fortunately, copies were kept in various places. We also have the Septuagint, which was translated a 100 to 200 years before Christ.

Click to expand...

We have pretty much, no autographs which is simply because papyrus is so perishable. The fact is that the copies have text variation in virtually all of them but they are meticulously accurate and the text variation isn't cumulative, it's just a mark of human handling. The Masoretic Text for a long time only went back as far as the 10th century, then they found the Dead Sea Scrolls. After years of the texts being with held for public consumption when they finally emerged you find normal text variation going back before the first century.

The most important thing to remember about both the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures is that they are living documents. That is, they have been a part of living communities their entire history. The tradition of faithfully preserving sacred text was inherited by Christians since so many early Christians were Jewish early on, and the practice of counting words and letters made the process extremely reliable.

I did want to mention, that does not dismiss the problems with the later part of Mark 16. Even solid Calvinists and evangelicals don't believe it belongs there. The woman caught in adultery in John's gospel while problematic, doesn't really look like an addition. It does seem out of place but it still appears in the earliest manuscripts available.

Taken together the Scriptures are the best preserved documents from antiquity, there is no close second. Reliability is in the eyes of the beholder I suppose but I really don't get much out of textual criticism, it has tunnel vision for problems and grossly neglects the meticulous way the Scriptures were preserved and the seriousness of Jewish and Christian scholarship in their preservation.

Grace and peace,
Mark

we also have the Holy Spirit who is better than the entire universe. in fact you can't understand the bible clearly without God because no one knows himself better than himself. you can see things in ways you would otherwise not thanks to God. so you can see spiritual influences in various things that people do.

if what we have as the highest of highs is the bible then we have nothing. if what we have is God then we have all things. the bible is very reliable but it's a stumbling block just like many things can be when we are blind.

Such a puzzling question, I would be interested in the answer.

I'm still puzzled as to how this relates to LDS, but I think I know. The Scriptures were meticulously preserved and are identified with Christian history, going all the way back to the first century. The Book of Mormon on the other hand shows up during the frontier period of American history as the result of Joseph Smith having them transcribed at the direction of Joseph Smith looking into a hat at seer stones. The Book of Mormon lays claim to 2 and a half millennia at least, with the only source being Joseph Smith himself.

I'm purposely going to avoid the Koran since it's a much different situation and not the subject of the thread. I've avoided these kind of questions since they are unlikely to gain much serious attention but since the subject came up and I choose to participate, I wanted to make clear my views of the comparison of BOM and the Scriptures.

Grace and peace,
Mark

When a book is translated into another language there is usually some loss of meaning. Individuals sometimes have different meanings for the same word. One of the earliest translations of the Bible into English is the Wycliffe Bible. It was translated in 1388 and is much different than more modern translations. Different religious groups use different translations of the Bible which they believe to be more correct than others. Members of The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints use the King James version of the Bible with headings, footnotes, Bible dictionary, concordance etc. particular to our beliefs.

mark kennedy said:

I'm still puzzled as to how this relates to LDS, but I think I know. The Scriptures were meticulously preserved and are identified with Christian history, going all the way back to the first century. The Book of Mormon on the other hand shows up during the frontier period of American history as the result of Joseph Smith having them transcribed at the direction of Joseph Smith looking into a hat at seer stones. The Book of Mormon lays claim to 2 and a half millennia at least, with the only source being Joseph Smith himself.

I'm purposely going to avoid the Koran since it's a much different situation and not the subject of the thread. I've avoided these kind of questions since they are unlikely to gain much serious attention but since the subject came up and I choose to participate, I wanted to make clear my views of the comparison of BOM and the Scriptures.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Click to expand...

OP:

Yodas_Prodigy1 said:

Why should we believe that the Bible is in any way in error or unreliable ("not translated correctly”)?

Click to expand...

LDS Article of Faith #8 (italics mine, to relate to the OP):
8 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.

The Book of Mormon has no "translated correctly" distinction.

He is the way said:

When a book is translated into another language there is usually some loss of meaning. Individuals sometimes have different meanings for the same word. One of the earliest translations of the Bible into English is the Wycliffe Bible. It was translated in 1388 and is much different than more modern translations. Different religious groups use different translations of the Bible which they believe to be more correct than others. Members of The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints use the King James version of the Bible with headings, footnotes, Bible dictionary, concordance etc. particular to our beliefs.

Click to expand...

The great thing about the Bible is we have tens of thousands of copies and fragments from which to discern what was written.

The BOM has what? ZERO!

Yodas_Prodigy1 said:

Why should we believe that the Bible is in any way in error or unreliable ("not translated correctly”)?

There are tens of thousands of manuscripts of scripture dating back to the second century. Additionally, the Church Fathers quoted scripture liberally. Between these two very large sources of scripture, the Bible is found to be very reliable. Dr. Dan Wallace from Dallas Theological Seminary is a great resource on Textual Criticism. A person may learn Koine Greek easily with the numerous seminaries and on-line classes. The thought that the Bible was translated from its native languages to Latin then English, or into other languages before English is not representative of the facts.

With the amount of data out there, textual critics are able to put together within about 0.5 % the actual autographs of the New Testament. Those scriptures that are questionable are documented as so within the Bibles, such as the woman caught in adultery and a significant portion of Mark 16.

There are tens of thousands of manuscripts as well as a liberal amount of quoting of scripture by the Church Fathers.

Regarding the Old Testament, we have the reliability of the Jewish copyists. And fortunately, copies were kept in various places. We also have the Septuagint, which was translated a 100 to 200 years before Christ.

Click to expand...

With all your copies of copies of copies, you have no originals. Reliable Jewish copyists made mistakes of 2 kinds. By mistake, and purposefully.

For instance, Jesus was the most celebrated holy man in the history of the world. His name is not even mentioned once in the OT. Cyrus, the pagan savior of the Jews was known hundreds of years before his life, but not the most important person ever born on the earth. And he was even a Jew himself.

BigDaddy4 said:

The great thing about the Bible is we have tens of thousands of copies and fragments from which to discern what was written.

The BOM has what? ZERO!

Click to expand...

There are zero originals of any page of the bible. Zero!

mark kennedy said:

I'm still puzzled as to how this relates to LDS, but I think I know. The Scriptures were meticulously preserved and are identified with Christian history, going all the way back to the first century. The Book of Mormon on the other hand shows up during the frontier period of American history as the result of Joseph Smith having them transcribed at the direction of Joseph Smith looking into a hat at seer stones. The Book of Mormon lays claim to 2 and a half millennia at least, with the only source being Joseph Smith himself.

I'm purposely going to avoid the Koran since it's a much different situation and not the subject of the thread. I've avoided these kind of questions since they are unlikely to gain much serious attention but since the subject came up and I choose to participate, I wanted to make clear my views of the comparison of BOM and the Scriptures.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Click to expand...

A certain common sense says that if you translate a book from copies, into hundreds of various versions you are going to get what we have today. A messy situation where the KJV says one thing and the EVR says a completely different thing.

For instance take Colossians 1:15 and compare. It is interesting to see the difference.

1 Nephi 49:9 -

9 And I beheld his sword, and I drew it forth from the sheath thereof; and the hilt thereof was of pure gold, and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine, and I saw that the blade thereof was of the most precious steel.

1 Nephi 4

Your average anti-Mormon work would respond to this passage by chanting "Steel didn't exist in Old Testament times! The BoM is false!".

Thing is...

Job 20:24, KJV

24 He shall flee from the iron weapon, and the bow of steel shall strike him through.

Job 20

Whoops...

"Steel" is referenced in the KJV rendering of the Old Testament.

...And not just once, either.

Scriptures Search Results

The anti-Mormon works that chant about how the BoM is supposedly false would also be forced to reject the KJV by their own same standard; the authors of these works usually either ignore what's right in front of them or engage in some sort of double-standard, never realizing that either choice nukes their credibility.

Peter1000 said:

There are zero originals of any page of the bible. Zero!

Click to expand...

LOL. This just shows how foolish your arguments are - you are trying to discredit one of your own 4 standard works!

Yodas_Prodigy1 said:

Amazing... Jesus was mentioned hundreds of times in the Old Testament... Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, Psalm 68, Isaiah 9:6, the Angel of the Lord, Zechariah 9-14... And the list is so much bigger... All over Genesis... It takes discernment and illumination from the Holy Spirit to see these... Think Jehovah.... or Think YHWH....

Click to expand...

How bout a plain prophecy that names Jesus by name, the man that created the world, and the most holy man to live in the world? Not one time in the OT.

BigDaddy4 said:

LOL. This just shows how foolish your arguments are - you are trying to discredit one of your own 4 standard works!

Click to expand...

No, I am just answering your statement. We live with the reality that the bible has not been translated correctly in all of its versions. You do not. And again, you reflect my argument, by telling me my argument is foolish instead of countering my argument with an your own argument. No counter argument, I win again.

Peter1000 said:

No, I am just answering your statement. We live with the reality that the bible has not been translated correctly in all of its versions. You do not. And again, you reflect my argument, by telling me my argument is foolish instead of countering my argument with an your own argument. No counter argument, I win again.

Click to expand...

You get your winner's blue ribbon by participating in the thread, I guess?

Which "version" of Greek, Aramaic, and/or Hebrew is not translated correctly?

BigDaddy4 said:

You get your winner's blue ribbon by participating in the thread, I guess?

Which "version" of Greek, Aramaic, and/or Hebrew is not translated correctly?

Click to expand...

How about responding to my post above?

No one else has.