Since the Bible contradicts the Bible, I would be very surprised if the Book of Mormon didn't also contradict (parts of) the Bible.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is the Mormon response to Rev.Ch.#22 Vs. 18-22: "I warn everone who hears the words etc"
- Thread starter Richard Dunn
- Start date
Joseph Smith was re-translating the Bible to take out the errors, but he never finished. There are still things that contradict, but for the most part stuff is simply left out.
Richard Dunn
Member
The bible does not contradict itself. That opinion is only held by those who misinterpret the bible, or scoff at it!
sooda
Veteran Member
There are many contradictions in the Bible .. as well as anachronisms and errors of geography.. But Joseph Smith was either a nut or an opportunist.
Richard Dunn
Member
The only things that contradict the bible are false prophets, scoffers and charlatans. The bible was complete and inerrant. It required no rewriting.
That's cool... I don't have an example.
I don't have an example.
Richard Dunn
Member
It is folly to compare the people of the book, with those who came after the book, and misuse it to gain money, power, and women for themselves.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
And I'm sure it's not even remotely possible that you may have misinterpreted the Book of Mormon (which I'd bet anything you haven't ever even read). Here, incidentally, is one instance in which the Bible contradicts itself:
In Genesis 1:27-25, humans are created after the animals. But Genesis 2:18-19 says otherwise. It has God creating "every beat of the field" after creating Adam.
And then there are the two accounts of the experience that led to Paul's conversion:
Acts 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
Acts 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
You can dance around these all you want, but they are contradictions. And they are only two of many. Or you can attempt to explain why two different verses say contradictory things. I'd be okay with that. The problem is, you would refuse me the right to do the same when it comes to any verse in the Book of Mormon you believe contradicts the Bible. You don't want a level playing field. You don't want everybody to have to play by the same rules.
Last edited:
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
And which version of the Bible might be the "complete" one?
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
As a non-Mormon, those would be your two most logical options. That's not to say that they are the only possible options, though.
Last edited:
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
There are hundreds of different translations of the Bible in the English language alone. There wouldn't be any more than one if everybody agreed how how it should be translated. Some of these versions are pretty different from others. But of course, you know which one is "inerrant."
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
You need to learn to play the game, robocop. The reason you can't give any examples is because we as Latter-day Saints don't sit around looking for contradictions within the Bible. As you well know, we focus instead on using the Bible to learn God's will for us and to help us understand the Plan of Salvation. People who bash Mormonism are good at finding anti-Mormon sites to "prove" their point that "The Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible." These people come up with all sorts of goodies (all of which have a good explanation). There are also a lot of websites out there (obviously developed by people who don't believe the Bible to be God's word) that can provide you with a wealth of information concerning contradictions within the Bible itself. I don't like to frequent those sites because I know they are designed to destroy the faith of believers. But sometimes you've just got to fight fire with fire. When people say that The Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible, you can give them a taste of their own medicine.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
I like your point. But it's a tad disingenuous.
The Christian bible was put together quite quickly, unlike the Old Testament.
Acts was written by about AD 64 if I recall. The author compiled the Gospel
of Luke from other accounts and witnesses. Not sure when John's Gospel
was written. All the Epistles were written before AD 70. These all circulated
widely and formed the Canon. This verse at the end of Revelation suggests
this, too.
Why don't you look at the KJV Joseph Smith translation? I am always struck by how much clearer it is!
Here are some of the translations:
Joseph Smith Translation Appendix
I am sorry to hear I am doing a bad job: I am getting lots of points and friendly's and have worked with some people to get out of Raelism, appreciate the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at least as the best Christian Church, and I've helped with pornography addiction. On other sites people have shown interest in our Church.
Don't look at anti-LDS literature. The Church called a man to do that. He read all across the Internet and in books and was tasked with creating many challenges to those media sources. You can hear his comments here and they are very good:
Stand Forever Lawrence E. Corbridge - BYU Speeches
If someone will tell me how they think there is a contradiction however, I will look at it happily.
L. Ron Hubbard died of a stroke.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
No, I hadn't. It's interesting.
This Eusebius guy - keep encountering his name so must read up about him.
I see it this way - there was an Apostolic Church, it wasn't the same as the
Catholic Church. I suggest that Diotrephes, who railed against John, could
have been the earliest Catholic "bishop."
These people, and those who cleaved to them in later generations, had
their own canon. What the Catholic church deemed later to be canon had
little relevance to them. No-one argued over whether James and his "works"
epistle was relevant, and no-one thought anything about reading John's
Revelation. It all had to do with the 'spirit' of the book.
Excuse me?
Do you think it was compiled so quickly that it was already a single volume - including Revelation - when Revelation was written?
... and then books were added and removed to form different canons until the Synod of Hippo, more than 300 years later (if you're Catholic)... or somewhat later in 1546 at the Council of Trent (if you're Protestant).
As of the Council of Laodicea in 363, Revelation wasn't in the canon.