Eight myths about the Bible

Latter-day Saints love the Bible and believe it as scripture. Indeed, Joseph Smith went so far as to say that we are the only people who truly believe it as it is written. Modern, sectarian Christians hang Bible verses like ornaments on an artificial tree constructed of man-made creeds, ignoring the passages which conflict with or contradict their doctrines. In the process, they have allowed a number of myths about the Bible to be promulgated because it serves their own ends. The following eight myths are summarized from "Here We Stand" by Joseph Fielding McConkie (1995, Deseret Book) McConkie is a professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University.

McConkie points out that the Bible is a collection of books which were gathered together by men over thousands of years. The Jewish Bible consists of 24 books that Christians call the Old Testament. The actual books that are agreed upon by Jews came from a council in 90 A.D. in Jamnia (near Joppa, Israel). At his council, it became so contentious that it resulted in bloodshed. (McConkie, 36)

Christians have divided these 24 books into 39 and ordered them differently. Their version of the Old Testament comes from the Greek Septuagint, which was rejected by Jews, because of the influence of Greek thought and the inclusion of the Apocrypha. Catholics accept the Apocrypha as scripture because they sustain otherwise unscriptural doctrines, such as masses for the dead and the existence of Purgatory. (McConkie, 37-38)

The origin of the New Testament begins with two second-century heretics. Marcion, a bishop's son and a wealthy ship owner, was the first to create a canonical list of books. His list rejected the Old Testament entirely as scripture and "was closed to all but ten of the epistles of Paul and the Gospel of Luke." Macrion's false teachings caused him to be excommunicated from the ancient Church. Macrion's excommunication was so final that the Church gave him back all the money he had donated.(McConkie, 38)

The second "heretic" was Montanus who declared that he was the incarnation of the Holy Ghost promised by the Savior to come. He denounced the absence of revelation in the church and the lack of spiritual gifts. To counteract his claims, the church began to teach that there would be no further disruptive revelations and that the canon of scripture was closed.

Over the next two centuries, Origen of Alexandria divided the books in his New Testament into classes of acknowledged books and disputed texts. The list of disputed books included James, 2nd and 3rd John, 2nd Peter, Jude, the Letter of Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas. This constituted the oldest Greek manuscript, consisting of 29 books. (McConkie, 39)

Eusebius of Caesaria omitted not only the Shepherd and Barnabas from his list, but also the Book of Revelation. Most Greek manuscripts omit it also. Other disputed books which Eusebius rejected were the Acts of Paul, the Revelation of Peter, and the Teachings of the Apostles. (McConkie, 39)

In 367 A.D., Athanasius sent an Easter letter to the churches of his diocese, listing the books approved for reading in the church. This list matches the current-day New Testament. Thus it wasn't until the fourth century that there was any consensus on which books comprised the Bible.

Since the Bible didn't exist in its current form in the time of the Bible, how did it then form the basis for the doctrines taught by Jesus, Peter, Paul and the other apostles? "The book was created by the church, not the church by the book." (McConkie, 40) An example of doctrine preceding the Bible would be the Nicene Creed, which was devised by a council in 325 A.D. The doctrine of the Trinity emerged from this council, which took place after the church had declared that revelation had ceased, but before the time that the canon of the Bible was agreed upon. (McConkie, 41)

Since the Bible didn't exist in the time of Peter and Paul. "No one who lived within the time period of the Bible ever had a Bible." (McConkie, 41) Therefore, their religion was not "Bible religion." The Bible is the testimony that God interacts with man via revelation and spiritual gifts, directly and personally. It was not based solely upon the words of God to ancient prophets, but to living ones. Why should it not be so today?

The Bible is the word of God so far as it is translated correctly, but every word in it was not uttered by God. The Bible contains the words of the devil to Adam and Eve in the Garden and to Jesus Christ during his temptation in the wilderness. It contains the words of Adam, Eve, a serpent, angels, prophets, apostles, and their scribes. It even contains the words spoken by Balaam's mule, who chastened him for his cruel treatment. All these are in addition to the words of God spoken to prophets and the words of Jesus Christ himself. (McConkie, 43)

Nowhere in the books of the Bible does it say that the canon of scripture is closed. Many will refer to the last lines of Revelation to claim that the book cannot be added to. Since the Bible didn't exist at the time of the writing of the Revelation of John, it couldn't refer to the Bible as a whole. The Revelation remained a disputed book for two centuries after John penned it. Thus the commandment that it should not be added to must refer to that particular scroll which John wrote. We should understand that most scholars believe that John himself "added to" the Bible, because it is commonly believed that he wrote Revelation before the Gospel of John. The Gospel of John came AFTER the book of Revelation in the chronological sequence of Bible texts. The apostle John told us that "...there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one...that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written."

A similar interdiction against adding to God's word appears in Deuteronomy. Following the logic of those who say the Bible can't be added to because of John's statement, we must consider tossing anything that comes after Moses and Deuteronomy. Man's rejection of further revelation is an attempt to "mute" God and deny that he has power to reveal anything new or essential to mankind. It defends the status quo, having a "form of godliness" but denies the power thereof. Since the Bible itself doesn't claim to contain all God's words, it would require a revelation from God to tell us that the Bible is inerrant, sufficient, persipicacious, and the final authority in all things. Thus, you can see the quandary: it would require a revelation to tell us that there will be no more revelation. The position is logically untenable.

McConkie poses a hypothetical situation. Suppose an angel took a copy of the Bible to a people who had no knowledge of it whatsoever and had no predetermined views on its contents. Suppose they built up a church using the Bible as their guide. Can we realistically imagine that they would, using the Bible alone, come up with anything remotely resembling the doctrine of the Trinity? Neither can we imagine that they would come up with a doctrine that one is saved solely by God's grace, without the requirement of faith and obedience to the commandments of God and the ordinances. (McConkie, 50)

The Bible doesn't clearly explain how to baptize, who can perform the ordinance, and at what age the ordinance the ordinance can take place. It doesn't explain the duties of bishops, deacons, and elders and what are the limits of their ecclesiastical authority.

Thus everyone, including Mormons, must interpret the Bible through an ideological lens. The lens the Jew uses is different than the Christian. The historian will use a different lens altogether. The Mormon's view must necessarily differ from that of Jews, the Christians, and the historian. This realization is important, because we must understand that, without modern day revelation to guide us, one Bible interpretation is no more authoritative than another. The restoration of the Gospel, the First Vision, the Book of Mormon, all provide additional light and knowledge that give us the keys to interpret the Bible correctly.

Without revelation, it would be impossible to determine whose interpretation is correct, because each interpretation will be influenced by the world view of its proponents. The same scriptures that convince a Jew that it is unlawful to turn on a light switch on the Sabbath day also convince him that Jesus couldn't have been the Messiah. (McConkie, 48) The same Bible that convinces Christians to proclaim an end to revelation and miracles also led a young Joseph Smith to "ask of God" and receive a glorious vision of the Father and the Son.

The Bible is probably the most misquoted book in existence. Paul is probably the most misquoted person ever. The Bible was written by living oracles of God to people who were accustomed to and accepting of the principle of contemporary revelation from God. The counsel and guidance the apostles gave were to people who had a shared understanding. It makes no sense to preach grace to those who haven't repented, been baptized,and had a remission of their sins. It doesn't add up to teach about spiritual gifts and the fruits of the spirit to those who have no right to them. The scriptures don't ask the reader to accept Christ as a personal Savior or to make a committment for Christ, because it is addressed to those who had already accepted Christ by covenant. (McConkie, 53)

The cafeteria-style doctrinal approach of contemporary Christian churches is the result of their rejection of modern revelation as a possibility. Without revelation to guide, one must try to cobble together some theology by picking and choosing what fits into one's world view and reject the rest as "metaphors" or "symbolism." (McConkie, 54)

This statement applies especially to Latter-day Saints. We often assume that the Bible is the common ground from which we can build understanding. If there was any semblance of agreement in modern Christianity, do you think there would be a thousand quarelling sects and denominations? (McConkie, 54) Joseph Smith went into the grove to pray because he came to the conclusion that it was impossible to find out which Church he should join by studying the Bible alone. This is a true statement.

In this "war of words" and "contest of opinions" that rages in Christendom, the only way to find the truth is to "ask of God." (James 1:5) Thus the Book of Mormon becomes the preeminent tool for conversion. It offers clear and plain gospel teachings free of sectarian interpretations. It clarifies the Bible's teachings and helps identify the interpolations of men. It also identifies to the sincere seeker, where and how to locate the conduit of personal revelation for himself, independent of anyone or anything else.

Latter-day Saints will be more effective by teaching the gospel from the Book of Mormon than from any other source. We should encourage all interested parties to seek truth in prayer and from the Book of Mormon. Finding the truth in this manner identifies the means of obtaining personal revelation, the source of restored authority, how to obtain the ordinances of salvation, and how to live in such a manner as to obtain and keep a remission of one's sins.

Even the different accounts of the apostle Paul's first vision in the NT are not harmonized.

Yeah, Lds usually claim this as a way to deflect focus away from Smith's divergent accounts.

First of all: All three of Paul's accounts about how he responded ARE THE SAME -- so will you first actually acknowledge that?
He saw a light (Acts 9:7; Acts 22:6,11; 26:13 -- which his companions saw, too -- 22:9)...and since this light that flashed around him was "brighter than the sun" -- 26:13 -- I think we can safely assume everybody saw this light!)
Did he fall to the ground? (Yes, all three accounts say he does)
Did he hear a distinct voice giving a thought-conveying message? (Yes, all three accounts say so, including even Acts 9 -- 9:4...Acts 26 says it was in Aramaic)

The issue Lds tend to focus in on is his companions -- pointing to:
#1 Those w/Paul didn't see a personage in Acts 9:7, but yes, they did in Acts 22:9
#2 Different reactions mentioned -- all three accounts say Paul fell to the ground...Acts 26:14 says they all fell...Acts 9:7 said they stood there speechless (except for Paul who fell)
#3 Acts 9:7 says they heard a voice, but Acts 22:9 says no, they didn't.

Do they harmonize?

#1 See something or someone -- yes or no? (Yes -- at least something)
What did Paul's companions see? Did they see any man or personage? (No, Acts 9:7).
Did they did see a "light" (Yes they did, Acts 22:9).
Does that contradict? (No, men aren't usually the source of pure light "brighter than the sun," now are they?)

#2 Did Paul's companions also fall to the ground or remain upright? (Yes, they also fell, Acts 26:14)
Putting all the reports together, what was their reaction? [As the accounts say, they were left speechless--fixed to the spot, Acts 9:7); they were afraid (Acts 22:9); they fell to the earth (Acts 26:14)].
Does Acts 26:14 contradict Acts 9:7? (No).
Why not? As one commentator (Haley) says: "...the word rendered 'stood' also means to be fixed, to be rooted to the spot. Hense, the sense may be, not that they stood erect, but that they were rendered motionless, or fixed to the spot, by overpowering fear."
I might say "I stood perfectly still" -- and not even be standing.

#3 Did his companions hear something?

Did they hear a voice? (Yes, when you include the NIV version of Acts 22:9, all three passages say they did)

Grammar lesson:

Acts 9:7: Hearing a voice (Greek, akouontes...tes phontes...genitive case in Gr. grammar).
Acts 22:9: Paul says companions "heard not the voice" (Greek, ten...phonen ouk ekousan...accusative case in Gr. grammar).

First, what's the difference of the two Greek verbs definition-wise?
akouo -- "to hear" may indicate the ability to hear sound or to understand...Context: Greek grammar indicates that they heard but did not understand.
phonen with "not" in 22:9 indicates that they did not hear well enough to understand.
In summary, the Greek indicates harmony between the two accounts.

Greek grammar & nuances play a key role in the distinctions:
'Tis difference between you hearing a sound--even the sound of a voice (the genitive case) -- Acts 9 -- and actually understanding it! (the accusative case) -- Acts 22

Akouo's meaning ranges anything from hearing a noise, hearing a report, to understanding! How many of us, for example, have heard a "report" -- a bang -- but because of being a "lay" person w/regard to gunfire couldn't distinguish it between a gun shot or a firework? You or I may have heard a noise (a "report"), but that might be different than a co-worker giving you a perfectly understandable one-line "report." Grammar context in this case is everything...'tis not only true with the Greek word for hear, but English grammar does this exact same thing with the words "to hear"/"heard"]

Illustration:
Genitive case: "The sound of your voices heard last night by the kids kept them awake in the next room."
Accusative case: "I heard your voice last night; I relayed to others what you sounded off on."
In the first case -- the genitive -- just because the voices kept up the kids doesn't mean they understood what was being said or that they were even keenly listening in. Another example: I may be 1 1/2 football fields away from a well-trained K-9, who I tell to go "sick" somebody according to command in a triangular direction from both of us. I may say, "Bowser, sick! Bowser, sick! Bowser, do you hear me?" Now, whether Bowser runs to me or to the "target" shows both "sides" of "hear." If Bowser was close enough to hear my command, he'll attack the target. That is, Bowser understood my thought-conveying message. If I put that into a sentence, it will be in the accusative case. If Bowser only heard my voice, but not the command, he might respond by running my way, hearing my generic call. In both cases, Bowser heard me: But what he heard in the latter case would be framed in genitive grammar. This is true for these same words grammar-wise, whether we're talking English or Greek.

Q Is there another example of this being done in Scripture?
A Yes -- see John 12:28, where the crowd heard the sound of the Father talking to the Son, but what was their perception? Did they hear the thought-conveying message that the Father was giving to the Son? No! (They thought it was thunder!) Just like the Son in John 12:28, Acts 9:4, 22:7, and 26:14 all make it clear that only Paul heard the thought-conveying message.

Yeah, Lds usually claim this as a way to deflect focus away from Smith's divergent accounts.

Yep, denegrate the bible when the bible testifies against mormonism. Colofornian did a great job summarizing how Paul's vision harmonizes. Just for comparison, how well do the 12 or so versions from smith?

1. His age/year it occurs changes significantly - 1823 (age 16), to 1821 (age 15), to 1820 (age 14).
2. The reason or motive for seeking divine help — from no motive (a spirit appears with the news of gold plates), Bible reading and conviction of sins, a revival, a desire to know if God exists.
3. Who appears to him — a spirit, an angel, two angels, Jesus, many angels, the Father and the Son.
(http://www.irr.org/mit/first-vision/fvision-accounts.html)

These three points alone show that smith's first vision story lacks truthfulness due to lack of a consistent story line. Some could fault him for forgetting his age - except in his journals he links the event to other more readily dateable events.

One could fault him for being very confused on his motive for seeking divine help. If Jesus Christ except that when other accounts are put together, his 1823 account has him praying to know if there is a god - silly for someone who 3 years earlier was visited by god. but he was young and uneducated.

But to completely botch up WHO visited you to the degree that smith does is the smoking gun of the matter. If smith saw God in 1820, why did he pray in his room in 1823 to find out "if a Supreme being did exist?" This flies in the face of the standard mormon claims (the man who communed with Jehovah). Like a little boy lying about breaking the vase, smith's story morphs in an attempt to find a socially acceptable form - which means it is a lie.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.