Der Alter said:
[size=-1]1. The Book of Mormon teaches that little children are not capable of sin because they do not have a sinful nature (Moroni 8:8). In contrast, the Bible in Psalm 51:5 clearly teaches that we have sinful nature from birth: "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me" (NIV). (This does not mean that those who die in infancy are lost.*)[/size]
[size=-1]Jesus certainly disagreed with that interpretation:
[Bible]Mark 10:14[/Bible]
Without quoting, Paul teaches in Romans that sin is a conscious act and those without law are without sin. Little children are without law.
Psalms is referring to original sin which was paid for by Christ without obligation. Also note that the Psalms are poetic works and were never meant to be interpreted beyond their immediate meaning, which in this case is to extol that none can claim to be righteous.
[/size]
Der Alter said:
[size=-1]2. The Book of Mormon teaches that the disobedience of Adam and Eve in eating the forbidden fruit was necessary so that they could have children and bring joy to mankind (2 Nephi 2:23-25). In contrast, the Bible specifically declares that Adams transgression was a sinful act of rebellion that unleashed the power of sin and death in the human heart and throughout Gods perfect world (Genesis 3:16-19; Romans 5:12; 8:20-21). There is no Biblical support for the view that Adam and Eve could only fulfill the command to "be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28) by disobeying Gods command regarding the forbidden fruit (Genesis 2:17). The Book of Mormon teaching that these divine commands are contradictory, and that God expected Adam and Eve to figure out that in reality He wanted them to break the latter command ("of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it") in order to keep the former ("be fruitful and multiply"), has no basis in logic or the Biblical text, and attributes equivocation to God.
[/size]
This is a non-sequiter. The BoM only contradicts the interpretation here. Remember, it is biblical contradiction we are looking for not biblical support. Follow the logic:
- Without partaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve could not sin, they could only transgress.
- By partaking pof the fruit, sin and death entered the world.
- It is only through death that procreation is possible and the only way the first instruction could be followed.
- You cannot demonstrate from the Bible that this is NOT the case.
Der Alter said:
[size=-1]3. The Book of Mormon teaches that black skin is a sign of Gods curse, so that white-skinned people are considered morally and spiritually superior to black skinned people (2 Nephi 5:21). In contrast, the Bible teaches that God "made of one blood all nations of men" (Acts 17:26, KJV), that in Christ distinctions of ethnicity, gender and social class are erased (Galatians 3:28), and that God condemns favoritism (James 2:1).
[/size]
This is untrue. The BoM does not teach that.
Der Alter said:
[size=-1]4. The Book of Mormon teaches that, "it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do" (2 Nephi 25:23; see also Moroni 10:32). In contrast, the Bible teaches that apart from Christ we are dead in sin (Ephesians 2:1,5) and unable to do anything to merit forgiveness and eternal life. Salvation is wholly of grace (Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 11:6; Titus 3:5-6), not by grace plus works. Good works are a result, not the basis, of a right relationship with God (Ephesians 2:10).
[/size]
There is no contradiction here:
[Bible]2 Timothy 4:14[/Bible]
[Bible]Titus 1:16[/Bible]
[Bible]James 2:14-24[/Bible]
[Bible]Matthew 7:21[/Bible]
[Bible]1 Peter 1:17[/Bible]
[Bible]Revelations 20:12-13[/Bible]
Quite simply, we are saved by the Grace of God through our faith in Christ and are judged according to our works.
Der Alter said:
[size=-1]
5. According to the Book of Mormon, about 600 years before Christ, a Nephite prophet predicted that "many plain and precious parts" (1 Nephi 13:26-28) would be removed from the Bible. In contrast, from the Bible it is clear that during His earthly ministry, Jesus himself constantly quoted from the Old Testament Scriptures, and showed full confidence in their completeness and accurate transmission as they had survived down to His time. Jesus declared that "heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away" (Mark 13:31; see also Matthew 5:18), and promised His disciples who were to pen the New Testament that the Holy Ghost "shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you" (John 14:26); Jesus further promised the apostles that they would "bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain" (John 15:16). These promises clearly imply that the fruit of the apostles the New Testament Scriptures and the Christian church would endure.
[/size]
Again. Non sequiter. This is an interpretation only. For this reason to be valid then the entire world of Christendom would accept sola scriptura, which they don't.
The scriptures quoted have nothing to do with Biblical inerrancy.
Der Alter said:
[size=-1]6. According to a Book of Mormon prophecy (Helaman 14:27), at the time of Christs crucifixion "darkness should cover the face of the whole earth for the space of three days." In contrast, the New Testament gospel accounts declare repeatedly that there was darkness for only three hours while Jesus was on the cross (Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44).
[/size]
Now this is really lame. Duh. This would have been an easy one for JS to have covered if the BoM was a forgery. We are talking about separate geographic locations. The occurrences obviosly varied because there were different locations.
Der Alter said:
[size=-1] An earlier prophecy in 1 Nephi 19:10 implies the three days of darkness will be more than regional in scope for it says this sign will be "unto those who inhabit the isles of the sea, more especially given unto those who are of the house of Israel." The darkness then would extend over the ocean to the islands and reach as far as Israel in the Middle East.
<snip>
[/size]
Now you are interpreting the BoM for us? And complaining when your interpretation of our scriptures is different from your interpretation of the Bible? Come on now! I expected better than this!
Der Alter said:
[size=-1]7. The Book of Mormon people are said to have observed "all things according to the law of Moses (2 Nephi 5:10; 25:24). However, although they are supposed to have been Hebrews, they were descendents of the tribe of Joseph (1 Nephi 5:17) or Manasseh (Alma 10:3), not the tribe of Levi and family line of Aaron, as the Law of Moses dictates (Numbers 3:10; Exodus 29:9; Numbers 18:1-7), so they would not have had a legitimate priesthood.
[/size]
Surprisingly, this is the first good question. One commentary I have read concludes the following:
"Lehi traced his genealogy through Joseph, not Levi, and therefore was not a Levite, and therefore not one of the line of priests who should be offering sacrifices. In addition to the obvious ability of the Lord to provide whatever priesthood is necessary for his prophets, it is also probably that Lehi was engaged in sacrifices which did not require Levites. Indeed, from what can be discerned of noted sacrifices in the Book of Mormon, they were not those which would have required a Levite. Clark Goble discusses the possible nature of the Law of Moses in the New World:
"It may be that they formed a rather unique version of the Law of Moses - one without the sacrifices of the Levites. We have the sacrifice in Mosiah 2:3 fulfilling Ex 13:11-13; Ex 22:29-30; and Dt 15:19-23. But this is a sacrifice that doesn't require Levites, as I understand it. (It is also a very Christological symbol, fitting in with their anticipation of the savior) All the other references to sacrifice in the Book of Mormon refer to the sacrifice of the savior, with the exception of thank- offerings.
1 Ne. 5:9 And it came to pass that they did rejoice exceedingly, and did offer sacrifice and burnt offerings unto the Lord; and they gave thanks unto the God of Israel.
These thank-offerings also didn't require a Levite. (Note the parallelism ephasizing that the offerings are thank-offerings) See for example Judges 6:20-27; Judges 13:19-20; 1 Samuel 14:34-35 or 1 Samuel 9 where a prophet, like Lehi, is present." (Clark Goble, "Lehi's Authority" 2 June 1996, Scripture-L)."
Der Alter said:
[size=-1] 8. According to the Book of Mormon, there were many high priests serving at the same time.
<snip>
[/size]
[size=-1]
All this is showing is that the Priesthood Organisation was different in the BoM world than in Jerusalem and is really a continuation of seven. There is no contradiction here. Theses were two different places.
[/size][size=-1] [/size]
Der Alter said:
[size=-1]9. The people described in the Book of Mormon operated multiple temples (Alma 16:13; 23:2; 26:29). This violates the dictates of the Old Testament Scriptures on two counts: First, God commanded Israel to build only one temple to reflect that fact that there is only one true God (Deuteronomy 12:5,13-14; 16:5-6). Second, the one legitimate temple was to be built in Jerusalem (Zion), the location designated by God (The Old Testament is filled with explicit references to God choosing Jerusalem [Zion] as the place where "His name would dwell" in the temple: for example, 1 Kings 8:44,48; 11:13,32,36; 14:21; 2 Kings 21:7; 23:27; 1 Chronicles 28:4; 2 Chronicles 6:6; 7:12,16; Psalm 78:68-69; Isaiah 18:7.
[/size]
[size=-1]
[/size]
[size=-1] [/size]
[size=-1] [/size]Once again we are dealing with non-doctrinal issues between the practices of two diverse groups of people in a different land.
[size=-1] [/size]
[size=-1] [/size][size=-1] [/size]
Der Alter said:
[size=-1]10. The most common biblical terms used to describe the Old Testament priesthood, temple and appointed feasts, are entirely missing from the Book of Mormon. Here are 10 examples of such biblical terms with their frequencies, that never appear once in the Book of Mormon:
[/size]
Again this shows nothing.
I am very disappointed. I was hoping to see someone post a quotation from the BoM and a quotation from the Bible and say "Look! These two pieces don't fit!" Instead, what I get is "The BoM doesn't fit with my interpretation of the Bible."
From now on, please only post things you have researched yourself. I simply don't have the time to troll through everyone's cut-and-paste. I am not using any secondary resources, so this requires a reasonable amount of work for me.
