CORRUPTION OF THE BIBLE
IS AN LDS SMOKESCREEN
The LDS maintains that the Bible has been corrupted and is,
therefore, unreliable. Their unsubstantiated claim is that some parts
have been incorrectly translated, and that sections that had
originally contained Mormon doctrines have been removed. However,
they have never been able to come up with any proof to back up their
allegations. The first part of this article is devoted to the evidence
that supports the accuracy and reliability of the Bible. And the last
section deals with the various LDS theories on the subject.
THE BIBLE'S RELIABILITY
If we have any doubts about the Bible's truth or accuracy, we'll
read it with a jaundiced eye, and will always be wondering about
the trustworthiness of some verse or the other. This will leave us
open to being easily led astray by false teachers, false prophets
and the like, whom the Bible warns us appear as though they are
messengers of light:
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming
themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan
himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no
great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of
righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. (2
Corinthians 11:13-15, KJV)
When it comes to deception Satan is a master of the art, and we are
no match for him. So God has provided us with spiritual armour for
our protection (Ephesians 6:12-17). When we use the Bible as
our standard of truth, it serves as a spiritual sword, capable of
decimating spiritual deception and error (c/f verse 17).
When Paul preached the New Covenant gospel of Christ to the Jews at
Berea, they checked in their Bibles daily to see whether the things
he was telling them were true (Acts 17:10-12). And sure enough, the
teachings in the Old Testament, and the prophecies about the
coming Messiah lined up with what Paul had been telling them about
Christ and his atonement for the sins of mankind. So many of them
trusted in Christ for salvation.
If we follow the example of the Bereans by conscientiously checking
up on whether or not the spiritual teachings we receive line up with
the Bible, we will not be led into error. But in order to have the
will to do this, we need to have faith in the Bible's reliability,
bearing in mind that faith isn't a blind, mindless belief, an
emotion, or a warm feeling in our bosom, as Mormons have been taught
to believe it is. Nowhere in the Bible are we told to have faith in
our feelings. Feelings are notoriously unreliable. Having faith
doesn't mean that we have to be gullible or throw our brains out of
the window.
The following facts reveal the Bible to be a reliable standard of
authority and truth, in which we can safely trust:
THE BIBLE IS HISTORICALLY TRUE
In the early 1800's, the University of Paris printed an academic
paper denouncing the Bible. They mentioned more than eighty
historical facts that they claimed were untrue. However, within
the next 100 years archaeological discoveries had confirmed the
accuracy of the biblical record concerning every one of those
so-called errors.
We have literally thousands of ancient, independent documents that
support the trustworthiness of the Biblical record. And
archaeologists have confirmed the existence of biblical cities,
nations, and individuals. They've also unearthed countless coins,
artifacts, and evidence of civilizations and wars recorded in the
Bible. Yet they've never found anything that has contradicted or
disproved the Bible's accuracy.
Compare this with the dismal record of absolutely no proof at all
ever having been found concerning the LDS's foremost scripture, the
Book of Mormon, which they maintain is more accurate than the Bible.
The evidence in favour of the Bible is overwhelming, and there is no
evidence at all in favour of the Book of Mormon or of Mormon
doctrine. Yet the LDS continues to throw stones both at the
Bible and at biblical Christianity.
ACCURACY OF OUR COPIES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
Strict regulations were enforced in the copying of Old Testament
scriptures. An authentic specimen had to be used, and copyists
weren't allowed to deviate from it in any way. Nothing was
permitted to be written down from memory, not even a dot. If any
mistakes were made, the faulty copies were either burned or buried,
as was every document that showed any sign of wear. Many other
precautions were also taken, some even more elaborate than these,
such as the counting of every letter on each page. So it's unlikely
that errors would have crept into the copying of the Old Testament.
It doesn't make sense to imagine for one moment that people who
were so fanatically fastidious about the accuracy of their
scriptures, and so in awe of them, would adulterate them or hack
out great big portions of them; or allow others to do so. Those
Jewish folk guarded their scriptures jealously and reverentially.
Don't forget that the primitive church was completely Jewish, and
a large number of the early church consisted of converted Jews,
all of whom had this very same reverence for scripture in New
Testament times.
In 1947 an Arab shepherd boy discovered a vast quantity of ancient
manuscripts in some caves, which became known as the Dead Sea
Scrolls. They pre-dated anything we'd previously possessed, and
included portions of every Old Testament book except Esther. Many
of the scrolls were in fragments, but those they have pieced
together agree with our modern Bibles.
The LDS Church maintains that parts of the book of Isaiah (the
sections that don't agree with their ideas), have been
incorrectly translated. But we can now prove to them that this
is not so, and that it is the LDS doctrines that are incorrect, not
the Bible. Amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls was a complete copy of
the book of Isaiah, written in an early form of the square letter.
This dates it as far back as the second century before Christ,
which makes it the same rendering of Isaiah that was read and
quoted by the Lord Jesus. He accepted and proclaimed it as the
true Word of God. And this very ancient copy of Isaiah agrees with
our modern English translations of today. So the LDS will need
another excuse to explain why their teachings don't agree with the
book of Isaiah.
Furthermore, Dr. Sidney B. Sperry, the LDS's own Brigham Young
University's Professor of Old Testament History, Literature, and
Languages, wrote the following in his publication, "Progress
in Archaeology":
"After reading the [Dead Sea] Scrolls very carefully, I came to
the conclusion that there is not a line in them that suggests that
their writers knew the gospel as understood by Latter-day
Saints." (page 52)
ACCURACY OF OUR COPIES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
As we've learned more about ancient biblical languages we have
been able to translate them more precisely. But this hasn't changed
the actual meaning of the content in any way.
We possess more than 3,000 New Testament manuscripts dating from the
fourth century. A few of these have minor variations. However, as
most of them do agree, it's an easy matter to sort out which are the
reliable texts.
Some copies of John's writings dating from 200 AD have come to light.
They agree with our Bibles. We also have the writings of the
apostolic fathers and the church fathers. (The apostolic fathers
were the disciples of the apostles, and the church fathers were the
disciples of the apostolic fathers.) Their combined writings contain
the entire New Testament, except sixteen verses, which are only the
introductions to the epistles. And their versions of the New
Testament scriptures agree with our modern translations. So we can
rest assured that our modern New Testament is in line with the
original writings.
In their book "Eyewitness to Jesus," German and British
scholars Drs. Carsten Theide and Matthew D'Ancona discuss a
fragment from the Gospel of Matthew, that scientific evidence
revealed was written before AD 70, possibly as early as AD 30. This
means that this gospel was written and circulated during the lifetime
of the eyewitnesses to the events recorded. So they would have been
able to vouch for its accuracy.
Because of the overwhelming evidence available, it is unlikely that
errors could have crept into our versions of either the Old or New
Testaments.
THE BIBLE IS OUR STANDARD OF TRUTH
The Bible is our standard of truth by which we can judge or test all
spiritual teaching. But once we start relying on it, Satan knows that
he will have lost the battle for our souls. So he puts a great deal
of effort into trying to discredit it. And he's very subtle. Remember
what he said to Eve in the garden of Eden? He insinuated that perhaps
God didn't quite mean what he'd said so she shouldn't take it too
seriously. And she believed Satan, instead of taking God at His Word.
As a result both Adam and Eve lost their righteous natures, their
immortality and their fellowship with their Creator.
Satan is carrying on that same campaign of disinformation today,
except this time it's against God's written word, the Bible.
CONTRADICTORY LDS STANCE ON THE BIBLE
When it comes to the Bible, the LDS church speaks with a forked
tongue. On the one hand they maintain that it is their standard
scripture, "the first" among their written guides in
faith and doctrine. But on the other hand, they insist that it
has been so badly corrupted that it cannot be relied upon.
"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accepts the
Holy Bible as the foremost of her standard works, first among the
books which have been proclaimed as her written guides in faith
and doctrine" (LDS Apostle James Talmage, Articles of Faith,
page 236).
"Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
(known informally by the nickname Mormons) believe the Bible.
Indeed, so literally and completely do their beliefs and practices
conform to the teachings of the Bible that it is not uncommon to
hear informed persons say: 'If all men believed the Bible, all
would be Mormons.' Bible doctrine is Mormon doctrine, and Mormon
doctrine is Bible doctrine. They are one and the same"
(LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie, "What The Mormons Think of
Christ," page 2).
But saying doesn't make it so. The second quote is both false and
deliberately misleading. The LDS leadership is well aware of the
fact that their doctrines are not biblical. Moreover, they
admit that the Jesus Christ that they follow is not the Christ of
the Bible either (see the relevant article). And eternal
progression, the foundational doctrine on which the LDS stands or
falls, is anti-biblical to the point of being blasphemous, as are
their doctrines on deity and the atonement.
Contrary to apostle McConkie's false claims mentioned above, the
Bible vigorously opposes LDS doctrines, and in order to justify this
very obvious discrepancy the LDS church teaches their members that
the Bible has been corrupted to the extent that it is not reliable.
They are instructed to use their own scriptures and revelations as
the standard against which to measure the accuracy of the Bible.
"The most reliable way to measure the accuracy of any biblical
passage is not by comparing different texts, but by comparison with
the Book of Mormon and modern-day revelations." (Church News,
June 20, 1992, page 3, quoting a letter from the First Presidency
[Presidents Benson, Hinckley and Monson] dated May 22, 1992, to all
of the Church)
There are a great many LDS teachings on the unreliability of the
Bible. Here are just a few:
"Many important points touching the salvation of men, had been
taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled."
(Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Volume 1, page 245)
"Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and
corrupt priests have committed many errors" (Teachings of the
Prophet Joseph Smith, page 327).
"... who in his right mind could for one moment suppose the
Bible in its present form to be a perfect guide? Who knows that even
one verse of the Bible has escaped pollution, so as to convey the
same sense now that it did in the original?" (LDS Apostle Orson
Pratt, "Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon," Page
47.)
In light of the above, one can only assume that their earlier,
dishonest statements about their teachings conforming completely to
those of the Bible, were nothing more than a deliberate smoke screen
designed to conceal the fact that Mormonism is an unbiblical
religion and that their doctrines are exclusive to the LDS church
alone.
The Book of Mormon goes one step further in the LDS tirade against
the Bible. It declares that only a fool would believe that the Bible
is an adequate spiritual guide. (This crude statement gives the
Book of Mormon a reason for its existence.)
"Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and
we need no more Bible. ........Wherefore, because that ye have a
Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither
need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written."
(2 Nephi 29:6, 10)
"..... for behold they have taken away from the gospel of the
Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many
covenants of the Lord have they taken away. And all this have they
done that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the
children of men" (1 Nephi 13:26-27)
Mormon literature provides many more statements along the same
lines, but the above sufficiently proves the point that on the one
hand the LDS claims that the Bible is their foremost scripture,
that they honour and respect its authority, and that their doctrine
so utterly conforms to biblical teaching that if all men believed
the Bible, all would be Mormons. On the other hand they maintain
that the Bible has been corrupted to such an extent that it can't
be trusted, that only fools would consider it to be an adequate
spiritual guide, and that Mormons should use their own LDS
revelations and teachings to gauge whether or not what the Bible
says is correct.
The above two irreconcilable LDS stances are what some would term,
"running with the hares and hunting with the hounds." In
other words, they enable the LDS to put forward whichever opposing
point of view suits them best at any given time.
Let's tackle some of the LDS's accusations regarding their
allegations about the Bible being corrupted and unreliable:
DIFFERENCES IN MANUSCRIPTS
There are minor variations in some of the available manuscripts.
However, because of the vast number that are now in our possession
(many thousands), it is an easy matter to sort out those that do
not agree. Concerning those that do vary, scholars have
come to the following conclusions.
"A careful study of the variants of the various earliest
manuscripts reveals that none of them affects a single doctrine of
Scripture. The system of spiritual truth contained in the standard
Hebrew text of the Old Testament is not in the slightest altered
or compromised by any of the variant readings found in the Hebrew
manuscripts ..... It is very evident that the vast majority of
them are so inconsequential as to leave the meaning of each clause
doctrinally unaffected" (Gleason Archer, "A Survey of
the Old Testament," page 25).
"Only about one-eighth of all the variants had any weight,
as most of them are merely mechanical matters such as spelling or
style. Of the whole, then, only about one-sixtieth rise above
'trivialities,' or can in any sense be called substantial
'variations'. Mathematically this would compute to a Text that
is 98.33 percent pure." (Norman Geisler and William Nix,
"A General Introduction to the Bible," page 365).
And Professor Richard L. Anderson, of the LDS's own Brigham Young
University, had this to say:
"For a book to undergo progressive uncovering of its manuscript
history and come out with so little debatable in its text is a great
tribute to its essential authenticity. First, no new manuscript
discovery has produced serious differences in the essential story.
This survey has disclosed the leading textual controversies, and
together they would be well within one percent of the text. Stated
differently, all manuscripts agree on the essential correctness of
99 percent of all the verses in the New Testament."
"LOST" BOOKS
The LDS maintains that manuscripts are missing out of the canon.
But there is a valid reason why not all available documents were
included. Some failed to meet the strict criteria deemed
necessary to qualify for inclusion.
ALLEGED CORRUPTION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
In attempting to explain why there is no mention of LDS doctrines
in the Bible, LDS Apostle James E. Talmage suggested that some
time during the fourth century Mormon doctrines and teachings
must have been removed from the Bible.
However, besides having been recorded in the Bible, the
apostles' teachings were also quoted in numerous sermons, letters
and documents. And by the time the fourth century came around these
writings, as well as the biblical record, had been copied a
great many times and widely circulated. So if Mormonism had been
taught by the apostles there would have been a record of it
somewhere. But nobody, anywhere, has ever found so much as a trace
of anything even remotely resembling Mormon doctrine prior to the
establishment of the LDS church by Joseph Smith. Critics of
Mormonism are of the opinion that Joseph Smith used the excuse
that the Bible had been corrupted as a dishonest ploy to justify
the fact that the doctrines he taught were radically
unbiblical.
LDS historian Hugh Nibley felt that the reason Mormon teachings
weren't mentioned in the Bible was because the original New
Testament had been sabotaged before any copies had been made.
But scientific evidence to the contrary discounts his theory. As
already mentioned, a fragment of the gospel of Matthew was
scientifically dated before AD 70 and possibly as early as in the
AD 30's. This means that it was written during the lifetime of the
very people who had been witnesses to the events it mentions. And
they would have objected it it hadn't recorded the true facts
correctly.
Other complete documents available are dated between about AD
70-807. During this time period Christians would have
been taught and trained for leadership by Christ's original
apostles. And there was an extremely strict criteria laid down
in the New Testament for selecting leadership. They would had
to have been godly, mature, spirit filled Christians of the
highest moral and spiritual calibre, whose doctrine was sound,
who knew the scriptures and were capable of correcting error, and
whose faith had already been tested and proved.
Furthermore, it would have been necessary for the entire
Christian church, including the leadership, from every single
area in the world where there had been Christians, all to
have become apostate simultaneously. And at the same time as
apostatizing they would all have had to, once again
simultaneously, reject their previous doctrines and adopt an
entirely different belief system that opposed and did away with
the very tenets the church had sacrificed, suffered and died
for.
This idea is too far fetched to even warrant consideration.
Over all these long years that they've been in existence, the
LDS has never ever been able to produce any evidence whatsoever,
biblical, historical or archeological, that so much as suggests
that either a complete apostasy of the early church or a
corruption of the Bible ever took place, as they maintain they
did. They have the same amount of evidence here as they have
for their Book of Mormon being true, precisely nil. In fact they
have never ever been able to produce any evidence that backs up
any of their claims concerning their church being legitimate or
that backs up their false accusations that biblical Christianity
of today is not legitimate.
Surely, if either of these two claims had any substance,
something would have been found by this time, to back them
up.
Don't forget that for the first twelve years of their existence,
the LDS's doctrine on deity was based on biblical trinitarian
teaching. (See the article on this site entitled "The Mormon
Gods, Past and Present.") Then Joseph Smith introduced his
new law of eternal progression, which radically changed their
entire doctrinal set up. But this meant that the God they had been
worshipping for twelve years and who was a spirit being, didn't fit
in with Smith's new ideas. So he persuaded the LDS to turn their
backs on their previous deity and to follow a different God, one
who'd had the same origins as he was claiming that we did, who was
once a fallen sinner, and who had a body of flesh and bone,
thereby fitting in with his new law of eternal progression. (Many
members left the church at that stage.) The LDS church has
continued this pattern of changing their doctrines whenever they
have deemed it convenient.
Why then do they persist in claiming that the exclusively Mormon
doctrines they now follow were originally in the Bible, but were
removed by evil men? The truth is that the doctrine on the
original deity they had worshipped for over twelve years, is still
in the Bible. It is the LDS's teachings and scriptures that have
been changed, not the Bible.
In contrast with the changing doctrines of Mormonism, the
Christian church today (which the LDS accuses of being apostate)
still uses exactly the same doctrines that Christ's Apostles in
the primitive church taught, adhered to and died to defend, as
recorded in the Bible. That's because truth never changes. It
always stands the test of time.
The Almighty God who created the universe, and who upholds it by
His power, gave us the Bible as our standard of truth, both for our
spiritual guidance and for our protection against spiritual
deception. And He's perfectly capable of safeguarding that same
Bible from contamination or error. However, the LDS infers that He
wasn't able to do this, although, conversely, they insist that He
is able to keep them from error.
Why don't they see worshipping different Gods at different times
as being error?
If God allowed Joseph Smith, His chosen prophet, to teach doctrinal
error on something as important as deity, and to lead them in the
worship of the supposedly wrong God for over 12 years, why should
we for one moment imagine that He doesn't allow the LDS leadership to
teach error today? And how do Mormons know that it wasn't the
second God, a glorified man, whom Joseph Smith taught them to
worship that was the wrong deity? How do they know whether or not
they are guilty of the sin of idolatry?
The following link will take you to an article that discusses the
three different Gods that have been worshipped by the LDS, each for
a lengthy period of time. Quotes from LDS literature, providing
irrefutable evidence that can be checked, are given:
The Mormon Gods, Past and Present
Copyright 2007, Mormonism and Biblical Truth. All rights reserved.
