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
how about a hen hatching a snake egg? it is logical.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
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
And the birth of a cockatrice results?how about a hen hatching a snake egg? it is logical.
Cute pic. Things of legend and curses are not comparable. I think some things in the Bible are not meant to be taken literally.And the birth of a cockatrice results?
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.
No, the Bible clearly includes bats in its list of birds:
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?
Well, that's just silly.
And you didn't answer my question: what parts of the Book of Mormon contradict the Bible?
However, IF we accept facts as our "measuring stick" for truth, the Bible must be rejected.Conclusion: The contradictions between the Book of Mormon and the Bible constitute a most serious obstacle to accepting the Book of Mormon as Latter-day scripture that is supplemental to the Bible. The Bible came first, not the Book of Mormon. And whereas the Bible is organically linked to the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ by extensive surviving manuscript evidence going back as far as A.D. 125-30, the Book of Mormon is wholly lacking in any such evidences of ancient origin. Is it not reasonable, therefore, to make the Bible the standard for judging the Book of Mormon, and not the other way around? If we accept the Bible as our "measuring stick" for spiritual truth, the Book of Mormon must be rejected.
What you don't seem to grasp is that Hosea is saying that GOD inspired him in what to write. This isn't his story. Please tell me one error found in the Bible.
However, IF we accept facts as our "measuring stick" for truth, the Bible must be rejected.
Then what are we left with to measure "spiritual truth"?
There you have it. That is exactly what satan would have you do ----- reject the Holy Word of GOD and accept lies as truth.
Please tell me one error found in the Bible.
And how does this establish the truth of the New Testament?JESUS quoted verses of the Old Testament.
So... you do agree that there is a problem with modern translations, but you think it's a problem with punctuation rather than word choice. Fine. What other Biblical passages have had their meaning changed by incorrectly interpreting their meaning this way?Well, it is interesting that bat does not appear in the middle of the bird list. Why is that? And again, ancient Hebrew had no periods, commas, etc. They are modern inventions.
Is this another translation problem? The NASB renders this verse as "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me."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.*)
Here's the Book of Mormon passage: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).
22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.
23 And they would have had no achildren; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.
24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.
25 Adam fell that men might be; and men care, that they might have joy.
No, there isn't, but it also isn't refuted by the Bible either.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).
I think this is more an issue of the Book of Mormon conflicting with your interpretation and theology, not with the strict text of the Bible.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.
Nice selective interpretation. I suppose you've never read any of the Old Testament passages that contradict the idea of equality, such as the Curse of Ham in Genesis 9, or the establishment of social classes on the basis of ethnicity and tribal affiliation in the books of the OT that law out Mosaic Law.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).
It seems you've been very selective about the parts of the Bible you choose to read... or at least which ones you take seriously. The Bible has a ready-made response to your claim in James 2:4. 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).
14(Y)What use is it, (Z)my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?
15(AA)If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food,
16and one of you says to them, "(AB)Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?
17Even so (AC)faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.
18(AD)But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your (AE)faith without the works, and I will (AF)show you my faith (AG)by my works."
19You believe that [a](AH)God is one (AI)You do well; (AJ)the demons also believe, and shudder.
20But are you willing to recognize, (AK)you foolish fellow, that (AL)faith without works is useless?
21(AM)Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?
22You see that (AN)faith was working with his works, and as a result of the (AO)works, faith was perfected;
23and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "(AP)AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS," and he was called (AQ)the friend of God. 24You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Did he? This seems like pure supposition on your part.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.
Great. So then you're Catholic, I take it. Right?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.
So? The Gospels also say that Jesus would be "three days and three nights in the belly of the Earth", but if you go by the timeline they give, he was only there for one day and two nights.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).
Actually, your first two OT passages specify that the Levites are priests, but don't say that nobody else is. And in Numbers 18, God appoints the Levites priests, but presumably he could also appoint whoever he wanted. I'm not sure how this is necessarily a conflict.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.
Leviticus 21:10? Why do you think this implies that only one individual can be high priest at a time?8. According to the Book of Mormon, there were many high priests serving at the same time (Mosiah 11:11; Alma 13:9-10; 46:6,38; Helaman 3:25) in the New World, among those it describes as Jewish immigrants from ancient Israel who "kept the law of Moses" (e.g., 2 Nephi 25:10; Jacob 4:5; Jarom 1:5). In contrast, it is clear from the Bible that only one individual at a time occupied the office of high priest under the Old Testament dispensation (see, for example Leviticus 21:10; Matthew 26:3; Hebrews 8:6-7).
10'The priest who is the highest among his brothers, on whose head the anointing oil has been poured and who has been consecrated to wear the garments, (K)shall not uncover his head nor tear his clothes;
I don't see how John 18:13 supports your claim, and the only reason I can see to exclude Luke 3:2 is that it's inconvenient to your argument.(The mention in Luke 3:2 of "Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests" is not a real exception -- in Christs time Israel was under the domination of the Romans, who intervened to change the high priest at will. That is, this office became a kind of "political football," rather than following the appointment process dictated in the Law of Moses. See John 18:13, which describes Annas as "father-in-law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.")
Wait a minute: if there's only one temple, then isn't Paul incorrect in the Epistles when he describes each believer as a temple to the Lord?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.
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:
- "laver" (13 times in Bible)
- "incense" (121 times in Bible)
- "ark of the covenant" (48 times in Bible)
- "sons of Aaron" (97 times in Bible)
- "mercy seat" (23 in Bible)
- "day of atonement" (21 times in Bible)
- "feast of tabernacles" (17 times in Bible)
- "passover" (59 times in Bible)
- "house of the LORD" (627 in Bible)
- "Aaron" this name appears 48 times in the Book of Mormon, but never in reference to the biblical Aaron or the Aaronic priesthood
In a similar vein, the Gospels place Jesus' birth both during the reign of Herod the Great and during the period when Quirinius was governor of Syria... but Herod died in 4 BC and Quirinius didn't become governor until 6 AD. There was no period when both Herod the Great was on the throne and Quirinius was goveror of Syria.John 12:21 states that "The same came therefore to Phillip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired of him..." Bethsaida was in the province of Gaulontinis, not the province of Galilee.
John 12:21 states that "The same came therefore to Phillip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired of him..." Bethsaida was in the province of Gaulontinis, not the province of Galilee.
Part 2...
Did he? This seems like pure supposition on your part.
Great. So then you're Catholic, I take it. Right?
Or Coptic? Or Orthodox?
Or are you all of the above? It would make sense if apostasy of the Church is impossible.
So? The Gospels also say that Jesus would be "three days and three nights in the belly of the Earth", but if you go by the timeline they give, he was only there for one day and two nights.
Apparently, the Biblical authors weren't too big on counting or math. If you're not going to fault the Gospels for discrepancies like this, why fault the Book of Mormon?
Actually, your first two OT passages specify that the Levites are priests, but don't say that nobody else is. And in Numbers 18, God appoints the Levites priests, but presumably he could also appoint whoever he wanted. I'm not sure how this is necessarily a conflict.
Leviticus 21:10? Why do you think this implies that only one individual can be high priest at a time?
Matthew 26:3 only states that they went to Caiaphas the High Priest. It doesn't even say that he was the only one, and certainly says nothing at all about multiple priests not being allowed.
And as for Hebrews, are you sure you got the right chapter and verse? I read the passage and don't see how it's relevant at all.
I don't see how John 18:13 supports your claim, and the only reason I can see to exclude Luke 3:2 is that it's inconvenient to your argument.
Wait a minute: if there's only one temple, then isn't Paul incorrect in the Epistles when he describes each believer as a temple to the Lord?
How many times do these terms appear in the New Testament?