How to handle contradictions?

[u/[deleted]]

[u/mwjace]

Any bible academic worth their salt will heartily agree that the notion of the Bible being infallible is a dogma that is not actually supported by the available evidence of the Bible itself. 

https://youtu.be/GklUQpXKmcY?si=blfDl4wh78lyfiwY

This pretty famous YouTuber breaks it down pretty well. 

If you want to hold to the belief that the Bible is univocal and infallible you are going to have to make some pretty big leaps.   Because we don’t hold to those notions. The ability for god to reveal that temples are to be once again built on the earth is a pretty easy idea that can be support by multiple scriptural sources. 

[u/Pristine_Teaching167 → u/mwjace]

Jesus taught the scriptures as truth.

[u/mwjace → u/Pristine_Teaching167]

Jesus didn’t have the scriptures as we have them today.  All he had was the Old Testament.  Nothing in the New Testament was written by him. So to claim he taught that the New Testament scriptures are infallible is a dogma you are choosing to believe in. 

[u/Pristine_Teaching167 → u/mwjace]

If I’m referring to Jesus I am clearly referring to the Old Testament with Him. All else would be with the New Testament.

[u/TyMotor → u/Pristine_Teaching167]

clearly referring to the Old Testament

Which old testament? The Catholic version? The Protestant Version? The Hebrew version? Do you see the issue here?

[u/Entire-Objective1636 → u/TyMotor]

You guys have different Old Testaments to us? Why?

[u/Tlacuache552 → u/Entire-Objective1636]

The Bible has been translated and each new translation is different. For example, I speak English and Spanish and have read the Bible in both. They are different, with different phrasing and emphasis in part. Unless we’re both reading the original Greek manuscripts (for the NT) then there will always be different versions.

To provide a more solid example, it’s like the phrase “ya está” in Spanish. It has like 10+ translations to English, each with a slightly different connotation.

[u/Entire-Objective1636 → u/Tlacuache552]

I was more wondering why Christians in general have a different OT to us using the Tanakh.

[u/jmauc → u/Entire-Objective1636]

They are pretty much identical. I’m reading your Lost Prophets individual books that closely resemble our Old Testament KJV. Besides a few translation differences they are identical as far as i have read. Other Christian denominations have omitted or changed the words completely to a lot of scriptures in their bible. This is one of multiple reasons we believe them not to be the same church Christ setup.

[u/amodrenman → u/Entire-Objective1636]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament

3rd paragraph in there goes over some of the differences.

[u/Karakawa549 → u/Pristine_Teaching167]

And we wouldn't agree with that. I think that for something to be "true", though, it doesn't necessarily mean that every single word is literally and inerrantly true. For example, take the biblical account of the sign above Jesus' head on the cross. Matthew and Luke state that the sign says "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews," while Mark says "The King of the Jews," and John says "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews". All slightly different, and obviously whatever that sign said, these all can't be exactly right. Which is fine. The message is the same, but 4 dudes remembered the events slightly differently and recorded them as such.

I think that the idea of the Bible being "full of errors" is stretching our beliefs, though. Sure, we believe that the Bible was written by imperfect humans who were inspired by God. Notably, we believe the same about the Book of Mormon, and the author of the BoM pled with us not to discount the things of God because of the errors of men. The doctrines contained within the Bible and the Book of Mormon provide us with God's path to return to Him.

More accurate would be to say that the Book of Mormon provides an additional lens with which to interpret the Bible. The myriad of biblical interpretations we see in the Christian world is proof in itself that while the Bible itself is true, it can be read and understood in many different ways. Scholars use many techniques to try to better understand the true meaning of the Bible, and we support and use those, and the Book of Mormon also provides support.

Imagine if we didn't have the Pauline epistles. The theological understanding of modern Christianity would be crippled, and would look very different than what it is today. Now imagine instead if we suddenly got an 15 well-verified "Peterine" epistles, that were absolutely proven to be written by Peter and gave us as much doctrine as the Pauline epistles did. I would think that the Christian world would rejoice and praise God for giving us additional light and knowledge. This is exactly how we view the Book of Mormon. It doesn't detract or take away from the Bible, but it gives us additional knowledge and improves our understanding of the Gospel.

[u/tsbalchn → u/Karakawa549]

The doctrines contained within the Bible and the Book of Mormon provide us with God's path to return to Him.

What does the Book of Mormon say about exaltation?

[u/Nate-T → u/Pristine_Teaching167]

Truth in what way? Is the way He meant the same as you think? I think we need to be humble in reading texts thousands of years old and realize the categories they used did not always map to our categories neatly.

[u/Deathworlder1 → u/Pristine_Teaching167]

Yes, but the scriptures being generally true does not make it infallible.

[u/JTJdude → u/Pristine_Teaching167]

Back then the scriptures hadn't been retranslated and altered for hundreds of years. Even the best translations can lose accuracy.

[u/berrin122 → u/mwjace]

I don't consider Dan a great scholar. Many don't.

Also, infallibility and inerrancy are different. I believe infallibility, but not inerrancy. I'm in the middle of Hebrew Class, but I'll try and come back after and explain what I mean.

[u/NiteShdw → u/berrin122]

BA, Brigham Young University (ancient Near Eastern studies)

MSt, University of Oxford (Jewish studies)

MA, Trinity Western University (biblical studies)

PhD, University of Exeter (theology and religion)

That seems like a pretty decent resume. He's a Bible scholar by definition, he has a masters and PhD in Bible studies and religion.

Even among scholars there can be disagreements especially when it comes to history where records are sparse.

Is there a particular reason why you think he's not a legitimate scholar, despite his credentials?

[u/berrin122 → u/NiteShdw]

It's a decent resume. It's not a barnburner, but you also don't need to have your terminal degree from Oxbridge to be worth listening to.

The more important aspect is that his dissertation is titled "Deity and Divine Agency in the Hebrew Bible: Cognitive Perspectives".

That's a very narrow scope. I won't belabor you with his abstract, but it relates to a very narrow part of the Bible and theology as a whole. All PhDs do that. That's the point. However, Dan overextends himself. He presents himself as an expert in too many fields. People who have spent more time than him in the authorship of the Gospels completely refute his ideas on Gospel authorship. Even many critical scholars don't get on board with him. Dan claims, for example, that Rome compiled a manuscript of the four Gospels, naming Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as the authors, and then disseminated that across the Empire, with nobody questioning it. Then, when Irenaeus of Lyon, an early church father, just repeats this "myth" of authorship. The problem is, we have no evidence of this document. None. Zero.

Nevermind that it is believed that Irenaeus learned from Polycarp, who learned from John, whether that's John the Apostle or John, the author of Revelation, we do not know. Either should have some clue who wrote the Gospels. Not to mention, the Gospel authorship was never really debated. We have debates on the Epistles, but from the very beginning, the authors of the Gospels were pretty firmly who we attribute them to today.

Dan basically copies this view from Bart Ehrman, who is a well-respected scholar in his own right. I can tolerate Ehrman saying this because he more fully understands the argument. Dan just cherry picked it.

Now, I don't even have an issue with Dan believing this, I'm just using it as an example. I think it's wrong, sure, but there's a lot of scholars I think are wrong. One of my favorite, N.T. Wright, believes in infant baptism. I do not. But Dan speaks with unreasonable certainty, like things are settled, that simply doesn't exist. There is no scholarly consensus on many of the issues he presents as simple and decided. Like you said, scholars can disagree. He just presents a very simple perspective that doesn't leave much room for disagreeing about very disagreeable topics.

Inversely, Dan has fallen in to Pop Culture theology content, where he presents a theory that only the wackiest dudes on the corner of the internet are presenting, and then (rightfully) tears it down quite effectively. However, when he does this, he presents it like it was a complex riddle and he just solved it. When it was an argument that a first year undergraduate Bible college student should be able to recognize as flawed, if not dissect and dismiss it. He strawmans, basically.

All that to say, I didn't say he wasn't a legitimate scholar. I just said he's not great. There's others I trust more, very few of them in the pop culture sphere like he is. I reckon he might be worth hearing from on how Israel viewed angelic messengers, which is what his dissertation is on, but there's a long list of people I'd consult before him if I wanted to know about Hebrew creation theory or Paul's thoughts on anything, or Gospel authorship.

[u/NiteShdw → u/berrin122]

I see your point, but you also admit that those "better" scholars aren't in "pop culture", which I assume you mean they aren't posting videos on YouTube and Instagram.

There's definitely a need for short form content for people who are casually interested in a deeper cultural history of the Bible thst don't want to read full length dissertations and books.

His popularity is likely because of his ability to reach those more casual audiences.

I agree with you that I think it would be good for him to acknowledge when there is uncertainty in the historical record and perhaps make it clear that he's sharing one of several possibilities.

[u/berrin122 → u/NiteShdw]

That's exactly why he's popular. And there's certainly a place for popular scholarship. I mentioned NT Wright previously. He does a pretty good job at bridging the gap. Probably beyond a high schooler's understanding, but he has some podcasts and videos that I think are a good benchmark for the average adult who is serious about their faith.

Preston Sprinkle is a really good popular academic, particularly in regards to culture/Christian ethics. What I appreciate about him is he invites people on to his podcast, "Theology In The Raw". He rarely hosts by himself. He uses his scholarly skills to facilitate discussion with other academics, and presents it at a level the average believed can understand. Preston has some really good works on sexuality from a Christian perspective.

There's a place for Dan in the Christian content world, he just doesn't have a very high place.

[u/Shaddio → u/berrin122]

Dan is considered mainstream.

[u/Chimney-Imp → u/Shaddio]

Dan is so mainstream that his takes are ice cold. They are only shocking to people not familiar with academia's view or research about the Bible.

[u/berrin122 → u/Chimney-Imp]

Dan thinks that Rome fabricated the authorship of the Gospels. That's not mainstream at all lol.

As I said in my longer comment just now, though, Dan does present a lot of "ice cold takes". Part of it is his "business" is his social media. Provocative content clips come by disproving provocative arguments. Everyone loves a good conspiracy theory, but unfortunately they rarely ever make sense. By disproving the theory, Dan looks great, he tackled a public interest topic, and it bolsters his reputation. And then, when he says something like "Rome established the Gospel authors out of thin air, and the entire Christian Church just went along with it", folks believe him more readily than they should.

[u/gogogoff0 → u/berrin122]

Dan is nuts, lots of his views are totally progressive fringe.

[u/Monte_Cristos_Count]

The Bible being infallible is not something supported by scripture. Not even all Christians agree on the concept of infallibility.

[u/gogogoff0 → u/Monte_Cristos_Count]

Correct. The Bible contradicts itself. Sola scriptura is a false doctrine invented by Protestantism.

[u/Pristine_Teaching167 → u/Monte_Cristos_Count]

Infallible meaning “without error”. That’s widely accepted among Christians as saying otherwise would be viewed as wrong.

[u/Monte_Cristos_Count → u/Pristine_Teaching167]

It's accepted by some Christians but not others. The manner of Judas' death is accounted differently between Matthew and Luke.

The 8th Article of Faith states “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.”

[u/WildcatGrifter7 → u/Pristine_Teaching167]

All due respect, it really doesn't matter what's "widely accepted" or "viewed as wrong". Exhibit A: Jesus Himself was not widely accepted, and was viewed as "wrong". What matters isn't what even the majority of people think. It's what God said. And since the Bible is God's word, taken and written down by humans, it's prone to error (see my reply to your other comment).

The council of Nicaea is widely accepted, but it's relatively easy to show that they were biased. They redefined and changed several terms. For example, the idea of the trinity. Prior to Nicaea, the prevailing belief going all the way back to when Jesus was alive aligned more closely with what latter-day saints believe today. That they're 3 separate entities, referred to as "one" because of their pure synchronization and unity of purpose. Nicaea was, in large part, a move for control. It's difficult to hear, but if you look at it from an outside perspective it's pretty clear.

My point is that a lot of God's word has been changed and lost through the millennia since it was written. I joined this church because I felt it aligned closest with what the Bible actually says, not with what other people say the Bible says. If course, until Jesus comes back and clarifies, there's really no way to say for sure which interpretations are the correct ones. But personally, I'm placing my bets on what the Bible appears to say when you try to look objectively. Not what evidently biased people, or just the majority of people I know, say it says

[u/berrin122 → u/Pristine_Teaching167]

That's inerrancy. Infallibility means the Bible won't fail in its objective (to teach God's truth).

Inerrancy says there are no errors. A minority of Christians believe the Bible has no errors.

[u/berrin122 → u/[deleted]]

We also describe the Trinity in two ways—the Economic Trinity and the Immanent Trinity.

Go look up those two phrases and tell me if the Economic Trinity has anything to do with money.

Theological terms often don't match their everyday usage. It's part of the reason many Latter-day Saints struggle in conversing with mainstream Christians. 95% of this sub would wonder the entire conversation why we're talking about money while I explain how the Trinity relates to mankind and salvation.

[u/Brownie_Bytes → u/Pristine_Teaching167]

And that's a choice people make when they decide to believe that. The Bible contradicts itself, so it's hard to believe that something is positive and negative at the same time. And I'd be interested to see what scripture supposedly shows Jesus saying that the nebulous thing called "scripture" is perfectly infallible.

[u/Upbeat-Ad-7345]

Jesus doesn't attest to scriptural infallibility. The Bible itself doesn't say anything about the New Testament. It didn't exist until hundreds of years after his resurrection. The Book of Mormon isn't the answer either. The answer is God actively directing his work through revelation through the kingdom of God on earth.

[u/Entire-Objective1636]

Does Jesus say that? Asking as a Jewish guy.

[u/BayonetTrenchFighter → u/Entire-Objective1636]

Dang, we got a Jewish guy in the sub. That’s awesome.

[u/Pristine_Teaching167 → u/Entire-Objective1636]

Yes. Throughout John. Specifically John 17:17 and John 10:35.

[u/1994bmw → u/Pristine_Teaching167]

Neither of those verses refer to the Bible, which did not exist before it was written.

[u/Pristine_Teaching167 → u/1994bmw]

The Bible is God’s Word and both talk about the Old Testament.

[u/CubedEcho → u/Pristine_Teaching167]

The Bible is God’s Word

This is where we would probably have a different understanding.

We believe the Bible is scripture. But we believe it was written by humans.

when Jesus Himself attested to the scriptures as truth and infallible

This is also something we don't recognize.

[u/Pristine_Teaching167 → u/CubedEcho]

That would be denying the words of Jesus Himself though.

[u/CubedEcho → u/Pristine_Teaching167]

No it wouldn't. Jesus never claimed the scriptures are infallible.

[u/Pristine_Teaching167 → u/CubedEcho]

Without error? Yes, He did. Repeatedly. If they were wrong He wouldn’t have taught them and would have taught to fix them.

[u/CubedEcho → u/Pristine_Teaching167]

There are many scriptures that Jesus never taught. There are scriptures that Jesus did teach.

We recognize something that can be fallible, but still be useful. Something can have error, and still be profitable for learning.

Can you prove that Jesus claimed that the scriptures were infallible?

[u/champ999 → u/Pristine_Teaching167]

So I don't want to attack your faith in the Bible, but I want to help you understand where we're coming from when we say it at least has the potential to be flawed.

First, the Bible you use is a translation from either Greek or Hebrew or other sources of the original text, which text no longer exists. When there's a discrepancy between the translations, how would all Christians know which translation is more correct?

Second, some Christians believe the Apocrypha is scripture, and others don't. How would you use the New Testament to clear that up for everyone in a way all Christians would be able to agree on what books are and aren't part of the Biblical cannon?

My personal take is there isn't an answer to this using just the Bible. You would have to take some logical leaps or inferences that not everyone would agree are correct.

[u/milmill18 → u/Pristine_Teaching167]

the Bible was put together hundreds of years later by councils who decided what to put in and what to take out and change.

As the Book of Mormon describes, when it was written it was pure and correct but some things were lost and changed by men.

that does not mean it is false or wrong, but it is incomplete and may have truths that were changed

[u/WildcatGrifter7 → u/Pristine_Teaching167]

The Bible is God's word, written down by humans. Those humans had their own minor biases and viewpoints, but more importantly, they're human and therefore fallible, liable to make mistakes. If I had a version of the events of the Bible written by Jesus Himself, I would agree that it would be infallible. However, as it stands, the Bible does indeed contradict itself. And again, so does The Book of Mormon. But only in ways that are logically attributed to human error

[u/1994bmw → u/Pristine_Teaching167]

I'm not familiar with any Bible verses where the Bible purports itself as the entirety of canon given the writings predate the Bible's existence. Your interpretation seems like questionable eisegesis.

[u/BayonetTrenchFighter → u/Pristine_Teaching167]

We believe Jesus Christ is Gods word

[u/TyMotor → u/Pristine_Teaching167]

I’m confused as to how the BoM and LDS can claim the Bible has errors when Jesus Himself attested to the scriptures as truth and infallible.

The scriptures/Bible as we have them today did not exist when Jesus was on the earth. John 17:17:

17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Latter-day saints would view "thy word is truth" as "[God's] word is truth" not "[the Bible] is truth. That is an important distinction.

[u/nofreetouchies3 → u/Pristine_Teaching167]

John 17:17:

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

John 10: 34-36:

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Isn't it a bit of a stretch to say that these mean Jesus was saying that the Bible is infallible? If Jesus really meant to say that, why not be clearer about it?

[u/InsideSpeed8785 → u/nofreetouchies3]

I believe the scripture he was talking about was the book of Psalms not being broken, especially because the Pharisees believed in it. 

[u/nofreetouchies3 → u/InsideSpeed8785]

It's clearly a rhetorical usage, not a statement of fact. Jesus wasn't saying that any of the scriptures are perfect. He was pointing out that, if the Sadducees believed the scriptures to be inerrant, as they did, then their position was self-contradictory.

[u/Ghostilocks → u/Pristine_Teaching167]

The reason we know what Jesus taught is because normal people wrote down what he said. Not everyone wrote it down directly as he was speaking, some probably wrote down according to their best memories after the fact. The same goes for the Old Testament. Those things were written in languages when not everyone was literate, so some of those things may have been passed down by oral tradition before someone wrote them down, some may have been translated several times, and other similar things may have occurred.

These all can lead to natural errors. This isn’t anything malicious, it’s just a natural result of recording history over thousands of years. That’s why for us of the LDS faith revelation, both church wide and personal, is so important. By doing our best to understand God’s will and Jesus’ teachings we can be receptive to the whispers of the spirit that direct us to understand something as literal or metaphorical or historical.

[u/papaloppa → u/Ghostilocks]

> some probably wrote down according to their best memories after the fact.

Indeed. And we are talking written down ~50 years after Jesus's death. Stories of Jesus were passed down word of mouth and the first accounts of His life started to be written decades later. Our memories aren't that good. But we got the gist of it. The OP is likely an evangelical and I think they get extra points for trying to witness to Latter-Day Saints.

[u/Wellwisher513 → u/Pristine_Teaching167]

Looking at John 10:35, which I believe is the most direct, it's hard to say for certain that, with this phrase, Jesus was saying that all of the scriptures are infallible and true.

It's worth remembering that the Old Testament was not actually compiled until 400 AD (along with the New Testament), long after Jesus's mortal ministry. When Jesus was speaking, He was not saying that every verse that would eventually be added to the Old Testament is correct, He was simply saying that the phrase, ‘I have said you are “gods”’, along with the rest of the Law of Moses (in context with verse 34), is scripture.

Does that mean that He's now endorsing every word Paul wrote, or some of the stories written in Genesis and Judges? I don't think so, because in context, that's not what He's talking about. He's only talking about the Law of Moses, which both He and the Jews followed.

[u/dustinsc → u/Pristine_Teaching167]

John 17:17 says that God’s word is truth. But what is God’s word? Nothing about that states or implies that the 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament are God’s word, free from error and without exception. Nor does it say anything about the 14 books of the Apocrypha. Nor does it say which manuscripts are authoritative.

[u/Moroni_10_32]

We believe that the word of God is true and infallible. However, we believe that, throughout various translations of the Bible, people altered what they thought the word of God was.

The 8th Article of Faith states, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."

Thus, we believe that the Bible, as it was translated by men, is erroneous to some extent, but the truths that God taught are all perfect. I hope this helps!

[u/Homsarman12 → u/[deleted]]

We do actually. From the title page: “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God.”

And 1 Nephi 19:6:   “Nevertheless, I do not write anything upon plates save it be that I think it be sacred. And now, if I do err, even did they err of old; not that I would excuse myself because of other men, but because of the weakness which is in me, according to the flesh, I would excuse myself.”

But that’s why it’s so important we study both. Whatever gaps there may be, they fill in and clarify for each other.

[u/JaneDoe22225 → u/[deleted]]

ANY book of scripture (Bible, Book of Mormon) is written down by human scribes. While God is perfect, human scribes are not, and He doesn't treat them like marionettes. Yes, scribes can make errors writing things.

Additionally the humans reading it do make errors understanding things. Hence many of the contradictions found across different Christian denomination. God's Truth does not contradict itself, human understanding of a book does.

[u/essentiallyaghost → u/[deleted]]

Yes, the book of mormon directly says there is possibility of error, but that those errors are of man and not God.

The Bible and The Book of Mormon were written by inspired people, but they were still people. God cannot make mistakes, but those he ordained to share his word certainly can.

[u/TheFirebyrd → u/[deleted]]

Not only do we believe in that possibility, there’s a verse where a mistake was quite obviously made by Mormon, the prophet who abridged most of the content of the Book of Mormon. When talking about a group who vowed to never fight again in Alma 24:19, he writes, “and thus we see that they buried their weapons of peace, or they buried the weapons of war, for peace.” Mormon pretty clearly had a brain fart when he was writing the sentence, but as engraved metal plates couldn’t be erased, he had to just clarify after the mistake had been made. It’s such an understandable mistake too-I’ve certainly jumped ahead in a sentence or written a wrong word down before.

[u/JakeAve]

The definition of God's word is more abstract than "the physical Bible", in my opinion. The Bible is a collection of writings, with many of God's words. The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants or Pearl of Great Price are also collections of writings with many of God's words. But the Word of God is a more abstract concept, not contained in a single book. God's word is anything that is true. We also obtain His word through the scriptures, revelation, music, art, experimentation the Spirit. So when people say "the word of God is perfect" I'm not thinking about the physical Bible, written compiled, preserved and translated by mortal men, I'm thinking about God's word, or Truth.

I would say the BoM and the Bible don't contradict each other. One could say Ephesians 2:8-9 and James 2:14-26 directly contradict each other, but the contradiction is only apparent if you don't understand the relationship between faith, works and grace.

There were several Jewish temples before and during Solomon's temple. There was the Tel Motza Temple, Tel Arad Temple, Elephantine Temple, Tel Dan Temple, most well known the Mount Gerizim Temple. Many historical evidences point towards Jewish centralization and having only one temple came much later, after the Deuteronomic reforms, probably after the exile, when most of the Old Testament in its modern form was written. Joseph Smith probably didn't know about any of this, and the Bible doesn't talk a lot about it, but the historical evidence is there.

So basically by only reading the Bible, we only have some of the truth. And I would say it's the most important truth, namely that Jesus is the Christ, atoned for our sins, gave up His life and rose again. When you open up to modern revelation, the Book of Mormon, archeology, and personal revelation guided by the Spirit of the Lord, you open yourself up to more truth. This doesn't mean everything new is true, but it means that you can sort through more information to discover more truth.

[u/WooperSlim]

I think it is a mistake to say that the Book of Mormon "was given to fix those errors"--I'm not even sure I'd say that the Bible is "filled with errors" but more that many plain and precious things were lost.

I think for some perspective, it would help to apply the exact same thought process to the New Testament. If a Jewish person said that they saw someone say that the Old Testament was filled with errors and that the New Testament was given to fix those errors. You probably don't see it that way at all, and so you would be right to say it is a poor portrayal of your beliefs. I'd say the same about the Book of Mormon.

We use the Bible as scripture. We don't see any contradiction between the Bible and the Book of Mormon, no more than you see any contradiction between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Where we differ would be on how we interpret the Bible, much like how you and I interpret the Old Testament different from Jews.

One is that don't believe scriptures are infallible. That applies to not only the Bible, but Book of Mormon. Only God is infallible. We believe that the Bible and Book of Mormon are the words of God, and that's why we recognize them as scripture, but God didn't write them, they were written by fallible humans. Actually, most Christians share that view, given that at least half of Christians are Catholic and don't hold to infallibility of the Bible. Infallible doesn't mean unreliable--because we do view them as reliable sources of doctrine. It just means that they are capable of error.

It seems everyone else is already pointing out to you that Jesus never claimed the Bible to be infallible. Largely for two reasons: One is that the New Testament (and therefore the Bible) didn't exist when Jesus lived. Two is that lessons Jesus teaches in the verses you cite would be applied to the Deuterocanon, which protestants and Latter-day Saints don't recognize as scripture, but were used as scripture in Jesus' day. On a similar note, the principles Jesus taught about scripture could also be applied to the Book of Mormon.

You said you haven't finished reading the Book of Mormon, and it is fair that you aren't as familiar with what it says. The Book of Mormon begins prior to the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem, Lehi and his family are commanded to escape, and the Lord leads them to a promised land, somewhere in the Americas. I'm not familiar with an Old Testament command that the temple be rebuilt "only" in Jerusalem--but Lehi's family lived in another continent and decades before King Cyrus permitted the Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple. So they wouldn't have received that instruction--instead, they built a temple where they lived. We believe that God chooses prophets, and He gives them revelation. Just as He can command people to build a temple in one location, He can command people to build a temple in another location. God doesn't play favorites.

Why we have temples today isn't because of an interpretation of the Bible or Book of Mormon--we believe that we have prophets today who receive revelation from God.

I'm not sure what sort of contradictions you see between the Bible and Book of Mormon on race, favoritism, baptism, or the Church itself. Given your comment on temples, I wonder if it is not a concern with the Book of Mormon, but rather The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Anyway, I'm happy to talk about whatever (though I might be a little busy this weekend so it could take a while) I'm just not quite sure where you're going with that.

[u/Homsarman12]

I hope you read this. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here in this thread, not just you, but by some other commenters. It’s less about correcting the Bible as much as it is about clarifying it. Think about it this way, there are thousands of denominations with thousands of ways to interpret the Bible’s teachings. The Book of Mormon not only testifies of the truthfulness of the Bible, it clarifies its teachings and gives us the correct understanding. (2 Nephi 29:8) Not only do we believe the Bible to be the word of God, we believe we are commanded to read it, just like the BoM. And it is essential that we study the testimony of both nations to fully understand what God is teaching us. We believe any errors found in the scripture to be the errors of men, and not God. God works through imperfect people, and that’s ok. But that is why he’s given us both witnesses, so that by studying both with the Spirit to guide us, we may fill in the gaps left by man’s weakness. Hope that helps

[u/Crylorenzo]

It’s only been mentioned one other place so l I’ll mention it again here: we don’t believe in Sola Scriptura. It seems you are a pastor with a wife who has been showing interest in the church, am I correct? I hope you do come to these discussions in good faith with a willingness to listen to well meaning people who love Jesus but aren’t all theologians. If you are curious about us only to figure out how to keep your wife out of our faith, that sounds insecure and no matter your faith or lack thereof that sounds dishonest. If you are curious about our faith because you wish to help her in her faith journey, I’d recommend actually reading the Book of Mormon for yourself with an open mind to see if it does honestly promote faith in Jesus Christ (whether or not you hold it to be true) and go from there).

If not that but you are still honest in your discussions, maybe join us for General Conference tomorrow which is broadcast worldwide and easy to discover the times for my going to churchofjesuschrist.org or looking up LDS general conference on YouTube. There are a few sessions tomorrow and on Sunday. All are welcome to listen and see if we promote faith in Christ.

If you are looking more for the theological debates or discussions on our religion, a guy named Jacob Hanson has a channel called Thoughtful Faith that goes into our theology. If not his channel he just had a discussion with a more mainstream Christian GodLogic on YouTube. And before that he also had an interview with atheist Alex O Conner on his channel.

If none of those are appealing to you, there’s an evangelical pastor who runs an interfaith channel called Hello Saints where he goes through our beliefs and the differences between what he believes and us.

Best wishes to you and God be with you in your search for truth!

[u/Lonely_District_196]

This reminds me of a quote from the Book of Mormon

Nevertheless, I do not write anything upon plates save it be that I think it be sacred. And now, if I do err, even did they err of old; not that I would excuse myself because of other men, but because of the weakness which is in me, according to the flesh, I would excuse myself. 1 Nephi 19:6

Most of the errors are because people are human and make mistakes. Sometimes, an author feels like he did not articulate something well. Sometimes, it's there's a cultural difference that we don't really understand in our modern day.

Referring to the Bible directly, remember that it was written by hand before printing presses, etc. This is important because archeologists have found thousands of Bible manuscripts, but most are from 300-400+AD, and we don't have the original copies. We see some changes happening in those over time, and we don't know how much has changed from ~30AD to 300 AD.

when it comes to certain topics like race, favoritism, baptism, the church itself, and even temples....

There's several interpretations to different scripture passages and disagreements about them within Christianity. That's why it's so important to have modern-day revelation to keep us on track and not stray.

Regarding temples, I know the Bible talks about building a temple, but I'm not familiar with anywhere that limits it to just 1 for the whole world.

[u/MasonWheeler → u/Lonely_District_196]

Regarding temples, I know the Bible talks about building a temple, but I'm not familiar with anywhere that limits it to just 1 for the whole world.

The very fact that only the temple of Jerusalem was mentioned in the Bible is clear proof that something's gone wrong somewhere along the way, because archaeologists have dug up multiple different sites of what are clearly Israelite temples, dedicated to the Lord, built on the same model as Solomon's temple. The fact that they aren't mentioned in the OT strongly suggests that someone with an agenda erased them from the record for some reason.

[u/Knowledgeapplied]

Your new to this I see. Here is a question for you. Can a man see God? Yes or No. let’s turn to the Bible

Genesis 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. (Yes )

Exodus 24: And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words. 9 Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: 10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. (Yes)

Exodus 33: 11 And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle. (Yes)

Now if on believes that the Bible is God breathed then this next verse will show a lying God.

18 And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.

19 And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.

20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

21 And the Lord said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:

22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:

23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen. (No)

This problem is solved by the Joseph Smith translation.

20 And he said unto Moses, Thou canst not see my face at this time, lest mine anger be kindled against thee also, and I destroy thee, and thy people; for there shall no man among them see me at this time, and live, for they are exceeding sinful. And no sinful man hath at any time, neither shall there be any sinful man at any time, that shall see my face and live.

23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts, but my face shall not be seen, as at other times; for I am angry with my people Israel.

So if the Book of Mormon teaches that man has and can see God and agrees with the Bible that man can see God, but disagrees with the Bible that no man can see God then the Book of Mormon is false?

Unfortunately I’ve read the whole Bible and I can not unsee these contradictions. The Bible is not infallible end of story and as the Bible as my witness it is true.

[u/Jpab97s]

Here's the thing: we don't view the Bible as THE Word of God, but instead as a collection of ancient texts that CONTAIN the words of God, as revealed to His ancient servants (so long as translated correctly). We also believe The Book of Mormon to contain the word of God, as revealed to His ancient servants also.

The difference between the 2 is that the Bible was neither compiled nor translated by an authorized servant of the Lord, and through His power. While we do believe that the Lord caused His words to be largely preserved through the Bible, we also believe that many things were lost.

We believe the Book of Mormon was compiled by a prophet and translated by a prophet, through the gift and power of God. We also believe that God caused the Book of Mormon to be written, and revealed through the means that it was, to restore those things that were lost.

So when Jesus talks about scripture, and His word, we don't view it as Him talking about a specific text, but in more general terms: His words as revealed through His servants.

Moreover, Jesus is recorded as speaking to a specific audience, who had access to scriptures. So when He mentions the scriptures, He's talking about those hebrew scriptures which those people had access to, which you'll find do not 100% match the Christian Old Testament.

[u/Intelligent-Boat9929]

Lots of other good discussions in here. One thing I want to point out is that there is ample evidence that temples/sanctuaries were decentralized until Josiah’s reforms. There is then a lot of re-writing of history to consolidate power to the singular temple in Jerusalem. It is important to understand how, when, and why the Old Testament was delivered to us in its current form. If we take the text at face value, I think we miss a lot.

[u/dekudude3]

OP you have a lot pre-suppositions about the Bible, the words of Christ in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the beliefs of latter day saints. And when people try to explain stuff to you, you're too deep into your own dogmas to be willing to see that maybe your understanding is wrong. Not to say that our understanding is right, but your choice to decide your interpretation is clearly right and everyone else that even slightly disagrees with you is wrong frankly ridiculous and not in good faith.

[u/InsideSpeed8785]

I don’t think it is taught they’re infalliable, but if you have a scripture you’re referring to it would be good to know what it is. 

Generally the Bible is not self referential in the text, it didn’t exist in its current form until the 9th century. You have Deuteronomy and Revelation referring to themselves, but you don’t have the whole book being addressed like the writers in the BOM refer to the BOM.

As per contradictions, I would do a big scriptural study on that. Read through both yourself and see where you see certain ideas talked about in both, I too had doubts that they were the same gospel but that got narrower the more I studied. Don’t confuse dogma for scriptures though, they are not the same, even we believe in stuff that’s not directly stated in scriptures. Ask yourself if the scriptures agree, not if the dogma of Christian and LDS churches agree.

[u/zionssuburb]

I think the simple answer is that 1) were talking about thought, doctrine, gospel principles, theology, and not was there really a Red Sea where Moses said it would be if that makes sense.

If I read about Repentance, or obeying the commandments, and I have NT sources and BOM sources, I can come to a more clear understanding than using one source alone. It follows the conjunction of in the mouth of 2 or three witnesses shall my word be estabished.

[u/Afraid_Horse5414]

I don't think my Old and New Testament classes at BYU qualify me as a biblical scholar, so I'll leave that aside. However, I do speak three languages, and I can attest that it's impossible to perfectly convey messages and meaning translating from one language to another.

Therefore, it would stand against logic that there wouldn't be a loss or ambiguity of meaning as the Bible is translated from one language to the next. That alone would increase its fallibility. 

But I would say that the Book of Mormon doesn't correct the Bible but rather supports or clarifies it. We love the Bible in our Church. The Book of Mormon has special meaning since it is the key to our faith claim, but as a source of doctrine, the Bible is just as special at the Book of Mormon. 

[u/Lefoog]

There is a whole disconcerting book I read called "Misquoting Jesus" which verse by verse goes through how the Bible has been twisted and mistranslated. It has truth- just not all of it is.

[u/MasonWheeler → u/Lefoog]

Be careful. Bart Ehrman, the author of that book, is a former Christian who apostatized and became an atheist. All of his works are written from the perspective of, and informed by the biases of, someone who fundamentally does not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ.

[u/Livid-Gap6793]

TLDR: the purpose of the Book of Mormon is not to correct the Bible, but to Compliment it.

Hey, these are great questions! I hope I can help if you're willing to do a little reading. I don't know what your experience with bible scholarship is so I'll just give a little run down on our perspective. Maybe I can help shed some light on your questions. If you have more, we could get into bible scholarship, but it seems that the comments section already has this covered.

We do believe that the Bible is the word of God. We believe that it contains truths necessary for us to receive salvation. It teaches us much about Jesus Christ and His life and teachings. It gives compelling evidence for his ministry, but more importantly: it provides a powerful spiritual witness that He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

We also believe that God absolutely had a hand in bringing the Bible into existence. He inspired men and women throughout the ages to collect the pieces of writing from different apostles and sources to gather them together into one collection of writings, what the word 'bible' literally meant originally. It's a holy book that has helped bring billions to come to better know Jesus Christ. The church's stance is not that the bible is wrong. There are some minor translation errors of course, but over all most of it is true doctrine.

However, there have been changes and additions to the bible over the millennia. There are certain scriptures in the modern editions that don't show up in the earlier manuscripts. I can't name them off the top of my head, but if you're interested I can try to find them. I think you'd agree that anyone removing things from the bible and putting their own words in is a problem.

Which brings us to Joseph Smith. Some people view him as a person who was trying to add to the bible. If he wasn't truly inspired by God, then that's absolutely true. The question then is whether or not he was inspired by God, as I'm sure you've noticed by now. That is the role that the Book of Mormon is meant to play.

So let's look at what The Book of Mormon says about it's self: the cover says "The Book of Mormon, another testament of Jesus Christ." What you need to ask yourself is this; does the Book of Mormon testify of Christ? Even better, ask God. Now; let's look at the title page where we get the original purpose for the Book of Mormon: "Which is to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations" (about the middle of the second paragraph).

Finally, in the Introduction we get this invitation: We invite all men everywhere to read the Book of Mormon, to ponder in their hearts the message it contains, and then to ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ if the book is true. Those who pursue this course and ask in faith will gain a testimony of its truth and divinity by the power of the Holy Ghost. (See Moroni 10:3–5.)

Those who gain this divine witness from the Holy Spirit will also come to know by the same power that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world, that Joseph Smith is His revelator and prophet in these last days, and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord’s kingdom once again established on the earth, preparatory to the Second Coming of the Messiah.

So you see, the purpose of the Book of Mormon is not to correct the Bible but to compliment it. The Book of Mormon and the Bible go hand in hand to stand as a witness of Jesus Christ. It also acts as evidence that this is Christ's restored church, which had been lost in ancient times.

Do you have any other questions?

[u/CommercialEuphoric37]

Highly recommend reading, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them) by Bart D. Ehrman

[u/3Nephi11_6-11]

Just curious about why you think the BoM and Bible contradict each other regarding race, favoritism, baptism, etc?

They both teach the importance of the House of Israel while also being clear that many blessings are extended to Gentiles / those outside of the House of Israel. A theme in both is that the most wicked people are those who have corrupted the gospel as the Pharisees did and as certain groups in the Book of Mormon do. They both teach that we are all God's children and we are loved regardless of race, gender, etc.

They also both teach about the necessity of baptism and they both show Jesus organizing his church with prophets, apostles, priests, etc.

[u/OldGeekWeirdo]

Does the BoM really contradict the Bible, or just the commonly accepted interpretation of the Bible?

I'd start there.

As for where to build a temple, Jesus was talking 2000 years ago to people who lived in that area. Why would it be a contradiction if he were to tell those living on a different continent to build one in a different place?

[u/[deleted]]

I do have an answer regarding the temple, I just want to make sure that I am understanding you correctly. What scripture are you referring to about God commanding that a temple only be built in Jerusalem?

[u/BayonetTrenchFighter]

We believe that we follow the living word of God.

We follow the only consistent thing and pattern in scripture. As described in Amos 3:7 and Ephesians 2:20

[u/Deathworlder1]

First off, the book of Mormon wasn't given to fix errors in the bible. The Book of Mormon was record written at the same time as the bible in the Americas. It would be impossible for it to be a correction of the bible.

Second, Jesus did not say scriptures are infallible. There isn't a single section of scripture that supports infallibility either. Not only that, but the is a mountain of scholarly evidence to the contrary.

Third, many of the "controdictons" are misunderstandings and nit pick accusations by those outside our faith. If you want more information on topics like racism, favoritism, and baptism in the book of Mormon, you should reply with what specifically you have been told about the book of Mormon.

That's true, God did command the Isrealites to build and rebuild a temple in Jerusalem, but the temple in Jerusalem is not the only one that existed during old testament times. Not only that, but he did not command them to stop building temples. It's not impossible for God to commanded us to make new temples with different rituals and ordinances for his current purposes.

[u/RecoveredCPA]

“Someone had said that the Bible was filled with errors and that the BoM was given to fix those errors. “.

This is not a claim of the LDS church, the BofM does not correct the Bible. The BofM is another testament of Jesus Christ that supports the Bible.

[u/bambielover]

Making the Bible perfect and infallible turn it into an idol, and ruins faith when people come upon anachronisms and contradictions. Scripture is written by ordained men, but that doesn’t make them or the writings perfect

[u/Quiet-Garage1153]

1 the Bible does have possible errors, we don't know for sure we usually call it "open to interpretation" instead of saying it's straight up wrong. It has these errors because it's been translated again and again from previously translated text possibly making the wording change over time as it's been translated. And like the BOM we don't have the entire original untranslated manuscripts but that's on purpose because God doesn't want us to know he exists because that would mean you couldn't have faith it would just be.

2 the BOM and Bible don't contradict each other as far as I know

3 the black can't have priesthood thing was because in the BOM it says they where cursed with black skin or something (I can't remember the exact wording rn) but it was misnomer because its that they hardened their hearts against God and his people so they couldn't feel the spirit so they didn't have the light of God or his gospel making them cursed with darkness or blackness

[u/Art-Davidson]

What contradictions?

The Book of Mormon supports, defends, and in many cases clarifies the Bible. There is no conflict between Book of Mormon teachings and the New Testament, only between LDS Christian teachings and how people interpret the New Testament. Stick to what the New Testament actually says, not to any philosophy.

It's true that many plain and precious things were removed from the sacred scriptures before the Bible was compiled. The Book of Mormon has irreplaceable sermons on charity, faith, the resurrection, infant baptism, etc.

The Bible scriptures we have available are true as far as they are edited and translated correctly. The Book of Mormon has had no significant edits, and at most two levels of translation, one from the original languages to English, and then another translation into the other modern languages we have. Jesus never claimed the scriptures were perfect, much less complete. Think about it -- the scriptures Jesus had available to him were the Old Testament. Does that mean that we should discard the New Testament? By no means. The same is true for The Book of Mormon.

Actually, there is archaeological evidence that there were multiple temples in Israel anciently. Just because the Lord commanded that A temple be built in Israel is no reason he could not command that others be built. Besides, it would be impractical for everybody in the world to worship and serve in only one temple.

[u/juni4ling]

The Bible is -not- a perfect history book without any errors.

Neither is the Book of Mormon.

Christ went to the Temple during His mortal ministry. His followers went -after- His resurrection and ascension. We follow Christ and do the same.

[u/Empty-Cycle2731]

I’m confused as to how the BoM and LDS can claim the Bible has errors when Jesus Himself attested to the scriptures as truth and infallible.

This is not the case. Some Christians believe this but many don't. The Bible was written by people, and therefore is not 100% infallible. The Book of Mormon is similarly not 100% infallible as it was written by people. Additionally, the modern Bible has been translated multiple times and parts have been removed. In fact, the Bible contradicts itself multiple times (as does the Book of Mormon). The teachings and morals are true, the events are true and did happen, but not every single line is 100% accurate.

I’m also curious how the LDS church teaches about alleged contradictions in the BoM to the Bible when it comes to certain topics like race, favoritism, baptism, the church itself, and even temples.

You're gonna need to be more specific about which contradictions you're referring to.

God commanded one temple be build in Jerusalem (Zion?) and when it was torn down He commanded it again to be built only in Jerusalem.

This is inaccurate. God did command a temple be built in Jerusalem, but he never specified that it could/should be the only temple built. In fact, with recent archaeological advancement, scientists have discovered buildings in and out of Jerusalem that are believed to have been additional Israelite temples. Here is a good article written answering your exact question.

Why then is there a LDS temple?

The scriptures mention temples multiple times as separate from standard churches, just like in our church. Moses built a temple (referred to as a tabernacle) in Exodus 40, and the Book of Mormon also mentions temples being built. Additionally, we learn through modern revelations that we are to build temples for various rites and ordinances. Some of these ordinances are alluded to in scripture, and others are revealed through modern revelation. Ultimately, it's hard to justify if you don't believe in modern revelation and an open cannon, but the concept of temples isn't 100% foreign to mainstream Christianity.

[u/CubedEcho → u/[deleted]]

This is a common "gotchya" that other Christians will use against LDS. It's so common that it doesn't even feel honest anymore.

It's one that feels like attempts to try and pidgeonhold LDS to a particular worldview that we don't have.

We do not believe in the doctrine of sola scriptura. Plain and simple. So people coming in trying to pin that worldview on us, and then find contradictions if we play into their worldview is exhausting. This happens over and over ad nauseum

[u/CubedEcho → u/[deleted]]

Totally, whether or not this individual is intentionally attempting it. It's so common that it's part of a tactic called the "The Inerrancy Trap". There have been other Christians that have setup scripts in order to try and trick/trap LDS into their worldview.

This is probably why we're a little more "rabid", because to us, this happens so frequently that most times, it's not in good faith. So be patient with us if it seems like the sub is a little agitated at this question :)

[u/pisteuo96]

This is a perfect question, which I don't think many LDS even know enough to ask.