• 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!

First verses Book of Mormon/Bible comparisons

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
The Bible is not meant to be a scientific description of modern biological categories. Instead, it is often written from the perspective of what we see. In other words, it makes generic categorizations.
IOW, if something's literally false, that's okay as long as it seems to be true at first glance?

In this case, the bat is categorized as a bird because like birds, it flies and is similar in size to most birds. If we did not know that it was a mammal, it would be natural to call it a bird. To the Hebrew of ancient times, calling it a bird was perfectly logical. But, in modern times we categorize animal species more specifically, and have categorized the bat as a mammal and not a bird.
Right... centuries before Linnaeus, we wouldn't necessarily expect people to get taxonomy right. All-knowing gods, OTOH...

Back to my question you skipped, though: what are "Biblical standards"? Once you list them, we can see whether it's actually true that the books of the Bible meet them and nothing else (the Book of Mormon, for instance) does.
 

LittleNipper

Well-Known Member
IOW, if something's literally false, that's okay as long as it seems to be true at first glance?


Right... centuries before Linnaeus, we wouldn't necessarily expect people to get taxonomy right. All-knowing gods, OTOH...

Back to my question you skipped, though: what are "Biblical standards"? Once you list them, we can see whether it's actually true that the books of the Bible meet them and nothing else (the Book of Mormon, for instance) does.

Just because 5000 years after the fact a "scientist" decided to group animals into specific species catagories, is no reason to call everyone who came before a liar. Example: The Bible speaks of dragons. It isn't to the Bible's discredit that in the early 19th century some "scientist" made up the term dinosaur. It isn't tho the Bible's discredit that the term homosexuality was unt invented until the 19th century either.

A Biblical standard is that one scripture cannot be contradict any other writing claiming to be GOD inspired, for one...
 

LittleNipper

Well-Known Member
this is nothing more than a poor attempt at rationalizing an error in the Bible.

So is it correct to say that you do not believe the Bible to be inerrant and infallible?


The reality is that the original text was written in Hebrew. There was no punctuation, chapters, or verses. It is very telling that the bat is mentioned after several birds are. It is right to imagine that a list was make of birds one should not eat and then the bat is mentioned because it didn't fit anywhere else and one might eat a bat thinking that it was okay because it wasn't mentioned among such flying creatures...

No, it isn't correct to say that the Bible is fallible in it's original language. The Bible is without error.
 

LittleNipper

Well-Known Member
It absolutely does, since it is, itself, a human contrivance.

Questions About the Bible
By Dr. Norman Geisler
(excerpted from “When Skeptics Ask”)
The Bible has many faces. It can be studied as literature and explored as a set of
stories and poetic expressions, or viewed as history which tells us of the beginnings and growth of God’s people. For some it is a guide to archeology, pointing the way to buried civilizations. There is a place and a purpose for each of those aspects, but at the basis of all, the Bible is the Word of God. It is God’s message to a rebelling world of how it can return to Him. It is a love letter from God to us. But do we take this claim seriously? Or are we interested only in one aspect?
How important is the Bible? The earlier chapters of this book have shown that we can
know that God exists, what He is like, how He can overcome evil, that He can perform
miracles, and that Jesus is God without ever referring to the Bible as a sacred book. However, it must be said that while these arguments don’t rely on the Bible, they are guided by it. They take the path of reason to reach these conclusions, but they are directed by the revelation. Without the Word of God, there is no guarantee that anyone would ever reach these conclusions. Even if they did, there might not be many who found them, and there is no telling how long it would take or how much error might be included along the way. Also, reason can take us only one step farther. That step leads us to the Scriptures as God’s Word. If we are to have any knowledge of God’s grace and love, then we must have the Word of God. The big question is,​
“Is the Bible really a revelation from God?” That is the question we will try to answer in this chapter.

How Do We Know That the Bible Came From God?​
We know that the Bible came from God for one very simple reason: Jesus told us so.
It is on His authority, as the God of the universe, that we are sure that the Bible is the Word of God. He confirmed the Old Testament’s authority in His teaching, and He promised an authoritative New Testament through His disciples. The Son of God Himself assures us that the Bible is the Word of God.​
Jesus Confirmed the Authority of the Old Testament​
Jesus spoke of the whole Old Testament (Matt. 22:29), its central divisions (Luke
16:16), its individual books (Matt. 22:43; 24:15), its events (Matt. 19:4-5; Luke 17:27), and even its letters and parts of letters (Matt. 5:18) as having divine authority. He called the Scriptures the Word of God (John 10:35). He said that they had been written by men moved by the Sprit when He said, “David himself said in the Holy Spirit” (Mark 12:36) and refers to events “spoken of through Daniel the prophet” (Matt. 24:15). In such statements He confirms the authorship of the most often disputed books, like Moses’ writings (Mark 7:10), Isaiah (v. 6), Daniel, and the Psalms. He also refers to the very miracles which critics reject as historical events. He cites the Creation (Luke 11:51), Adam and Eve (Matt.19:4-5), Noah and the Flood (Matt. 24:37-39), Sodom and Gomorrah (Luke 10:12), and Jonah and the great fish (Matt. 12:39-41). He said, “it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of the letter of the Law to fail” (Luke 16:17). The fact that He considered the Scripture to be the final authority is seen clearly in His temptations, when He defends Himself from Satan’s attacks three times with the phrase, “It is written” (Matt.
4:4ff).“Here,” Jesus was saying, “is the permanent, unchangeable witness of the eternal God, committed to writing for our instruction.” Such it appears to have been to Jesus’ inmost soul, quite apart from any convenience to Him in controversy. In the hour of utmost crisis and at the moment of death, words of the Scripture came to His lips: “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” (Ps. 22:1; Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34, NIV) and “Into Your hands I commit My spirit” (Ps. 31:5; Luke 23:46, NIV).​
1

Jesus Promised the New Testament​
Jesus told His disciples just before He left them, “These things I have spoken to you,
while abiding with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you” (John 14:25-26). Jesus added, “when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come” (16:13). These statements promise that the teachings of Jesus will be remembered and understood, and that additional truths would be given to the apostles so that the church could be established. They set the stage for the apostolic era which began on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1ff) and continued until the last of the apostles died (John, about A.D. 100). During this period, the apostles became the agents of the complete and final revelation of Jesus Christ and He continued “to do and teach” through them (Acts 1:1). They were given the “keys to the kingdom” (Matt. 16:19) and by their hands did believers receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:14-15; 19:1-6). The early church built its doctrines and practices on “the foundation of the apostles” (Eph. 2:20). It followed the “apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42) and was bound by decisions of the apostolic council (Acts 15). Even though Paul had received his apostleship by a revelation from God, his credentials were confirmed by the apostles in Jerusalem. Some of the New Testament writers were not apostles, though. How can we explaintheir authority? They used the apostolic message which was “confirmed to us by those who heard” (Heb. 2:3). Mark worked closely with Peter (1 Peter 5:13); James and Jude were closely associated with the apostles in Jerusalem and were probably Jesus’ brothers; Luke was a companion of Paul (2 Tim. 4:11) who interviewed many eyewitnesses to produce his account (Luke 1:1-4). Paul’s writings are even equated with Scripture by Peter (2 Peter 3:15-16). In each case (with the exception of Hebrews; we don’t know for sure who wrote that book), there is a definite link between the writer and the apostles who gave them information (cf. Heb. 2:3).
Now, if Jesus, who was God in the flesh and always spoke the truth, said that the Old
Testament was the Word of God and that the New Testament would be written by His
apostles and prophets as the sole authorized agents for His message, then our entire Bible is proven to be from God. We have it on the best of authority—Jesus Christ Himself.
1. John Wenham, “Christ’s View of Scripture” in​
Inerrancy, ed. By Norman L. Geisler
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), pp. 15-16.

1TDGeisler999
 
So the BoM is fallible because you can't prove it, and the Bible is not fallible because there are parts of it that correspond with history and science? So then parts of the Bible are fallible while others aren't, since some parts cannot be correlated through science or history. How do you choose which is true and which is false in the Bible?
 

Troublemane

Well-Known Member
I still say the only true work of Gawd is the Cat in the Hat.

"1 fish, 2 fish....red fish, blue fish...":angel2:
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Just because 5000 years after the fact a "scientist" decided to group animals into specific species catagories, is no reason to call everyone who came before a liar.
Ah... so are you saying that in ancient Hebrew, whatever word is used in the Biblical text for "bird" actually did validly apply to bats?

The implication here is that modern translations have translated this word incorrectly. What other words have they mis-translated?

Example: The Bible speaks of dragons. It isn't to the Bible's discredit that in the early 19th century some "scientist" made up the term dinosaur.
AFAIK, dragons are only mentioned in Revelation, and only then in a future-looking (some would say metaphoric or poetic) sense, and in those cases, it's made clear through the text that the dragon is a manifestation of Satan. Are dinosaurs Satan?

It isn't tho the Bible's discredit that the term homosexuality was unt invented until the 19th century either.
No, but it is to some Christians' discredit that they don't realize the implication of this: if homosexuality as we know it today is not referred to in the Bible, then homosexuality as we know it today is not condemned by the Bible.

A Biblical standard is that one scripture cannot be contradict any other writing claiming to be GOD inspired, for one...
Okay... we're finally getting somewhere. What parts of the Book of Mormon do you think contradict the Bible?
 

LittleNipper

Well-Known Member
So the BoM is fallible because you can't prove it, and the Bible is not fallible because there are parts of it that correspond with history and science? So then parts of the Bible are fallible while others aren't, since some parts cannot be correlated through science or history. How do you choose which is true and which is false in the Bible?

The book of Mormon is fallible, because CHRIST never mentions it.
 

LittleNipper

Well-Known Member
Ah... so are you saying that in ancient Hebrew, whatever word is used in the Biblical text for "bird" actually did validly apply to bats?

The implication here is that modern translations have translated this word incorrectly. What other words have they mis-translated?


AFAIK, dragons are only mentioned in Revelation, and only then in a future-looking (some would say metaphoric or poetic) sense, and in those cases, it's made clear through the text that the dragon is a manifestation of Satan. Are dinosaurs Satan?


No, but it is to some Christians' discredit that they don't realize the implication of this: if homosexuality as we know it today is not referred to in the Bible, then homosexuality as we know it today is not condemned by the Bible.


Okay... we're finally getting somewhere. What parts of the Book of Mormon do you think contradict the Bible?

No, what I'm saying is that GOD made a warning not to eat certain birds and not to eat bats. The Bible mentions two creatures that seem remarkably similar to the dinosaurs, the leviathan and behemoth, in Job chapters 40-41. It is the view of Creation scientists that all the “dragon” myths came from real contact between human beings and dinosaurs.
 
The book of Mormon is fallible, because CHRIST never mentions it.
Does Christ specifically mentions any of the books in the Bible?
And what good would it do for Christ to mention the books in the BoM to people who wouldn't know of it? Nobody around Christ would have any access to the work.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
No, what I'm saying is that GOD made a warning not to eat certain birds and not to eat bats.
No, the Bible clearly includes bats in its list of birds:

13'These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard,

14and the kite and the falcon in its kind,
15every raven in its kind,
16and the ostrich and the owl and the sea gull and the hawk in its kind,
17and the little owl and the cormorant and the great owl,
18and the white owl and the pelican and the carrion vulture, 19and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat.

In modern English, a bat is not a bird. The translated text is factually incorrect.

IMO, here are the only two choices you have to explain this:

- the Hebrew was factually incorrect, and this fault has been faithfully reproduced in the English version.

- the Hebrew term rendered "bird" doesn't actually mean "bird". The original Hebrew text may have been factually correct, but the translation is in error.

Which is it?

The Bible mentions two creatures that seem remarkably similar to the dinosaurs, the leviathan and behemoth, in Job chapters 40-41. It is the view of Creation scientists that all the “dragon” myths came from real contact between human beings and dinosaurs.
Well, that's just silly.


And you didn't answer my question: what parts of the Book of Mormon contradict the Bible?
 

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
The book of Mormon is fallible, because CHRIST never mentions it.

The book of Revelations is fallible, because CHRIST never mentions it.
The book of Jude is fallible, because CHRIST never mentions it.
The book of Titus is fallible, because CHRIST never mentions it.


I could go on and on and on.......
 

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
No, what I'm saying is that GOD made a warning not to eat certain birds and not to eat bats. The Bible mentions two creatures that seem remarkably similar to the dinosaurs, the leviathan and behemoth, in Job chapters 40-41. It is the view of Creation scientists that all the “dragon” myths came from real contact between human beings and dinosaurs.

Job 3:8 Let them curse it who curse the day, who are ready to rouse up leviathan.

Job 41:1 "Can you draw out Leviathan with a fishhook, or press down his tongue with a cord?

Psalms 74:14 You broke the heads of Leviathan in pieces. You gave him as food to people and desert creatures.

Psalms 104:26 There the ships go, and leviathan, whom you formed to play there.

Isaiah 27:1 In that day, Yahweh with his hard and great and strong sword will punish leviathan, the fleeing serpent, and leviathan the twisted serpent; and he will kill the dragon that is in the sea.

So, your Leviathan, whom the Creation pseudoscientists believe to be a dino that was present with man, was a multi-headed, clean (edible by man), sea-serpent? One that will be punished?:facepalm:
 

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
Job 40
15
“Behold now, Behemoth, which I made as well as you; He eats grass like an ox.
16 “Behold now, his strength in his loins And his power in the muscles of his belly.
17 “He bends his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are knit together.
18 “His bones are tubes of bronze; His limbs are like bars of iron.
19 “He is the first of the ways of God; Let his maker bring near his sword.
20 “Surely the mountains bring him food, And all the beasts of the field play there.
21 “Under the lotus plants he lies down, In the covert of the reeds and the marsh.
22 “The lotus plants cover him with shade; The willows of the brook surround him.
23 “If a river rages, he is not alarmed; He is confident, though the Jordan rushes to his mouth.
24 “Can anyone capture him when he is on watch, With barbs can anyone pierce his nose?

Behemoth, the Hebrew plural of behemah, "a beast," used of domestic or wild animals. The same form, behemoth, occurs in other passages, e.g. Deuteronomy 28:26; Deuteronomy 32:24 Isaiah 18:6 Habakkuk 2:17, where it is not rendered "behemoth" but "beasts."

Your Creation pseudoscientists would do well to study the Bible, and it's original Hebrew.
 

Archer

Well-Known Member
Can someone explain how the Book of Mormon speaks of horses when at the time period it is pertaining to there were no horses in the Americas? That is where I stopped in my Mormon adventures.
 

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
Can someone explain how the Book of Mormon speaks of horses when at the time period it is pertaining to there were no horses in the Americas? That is where I stopped in my Mormon adventures.
As this is a comparison of the BoM to the Bible, we would also need an explanation of Gods threat to send cockatrices, a mythical snake hatched from a hens egg.
Jeremiah 8:17
 
Top