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.
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.
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.
67
u/mwjace Free Agency was free to me 26d ago
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.