Bible Vs Book Of Mormon

[KiwiChristian]

The Book of Mormon contains numerous passages that contradict the Bible. The following examples, which still appear in recent editions, are conspicuous instances of such contradictions.

• The Bible says that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1). However, the Book of Mormon reads: "And behold, he shall be born of Mary at Jerusalem" (Alma 7:10). The writer of the Book of Mormon simply did not have his facts straight. The common Mormon explanation for this is that since Jerusalem was so close to Bethlehem, it could be said he was born there. However, in the Bible, prophets of God did not make it a practice of just being "close" in their predictions. God would not have made such a mistake.

• The Bible relates that at the crucifixion there were three hours of darkness (Luke 23:44). However, the Book of Mormon states there was darkness "for the space of three days" (Helaman 14:20,27). Of course, this is a big difference. Which one is true? Can God be responsible for conflicting statements such as these?

• The Book of Mormon relates that at the tower of Babel the Jaredites had their separate language (Esther 1:34-35). The Bible, however, plainly states that "the whole earth was of one language" (Genesis 11:1). Apparently, the writer of the Book of Mormon mistakenly thought there were many different languages and that God confounded them while sparing the language of the Jaredites. The fact is, there was only one language and God confounded the people by creating different languages.

• 3 Nephi 11:8-10 claims that after Jesus ascended to heaven, He appeared in America to the Lamanites and Nephites in A.D. 34. However, this clearly contradicts the Bible. Of the ascension of Christ to heaven God said, "Sit thou on my right hand until I make thy foes thy footstools" (Acts 2:34-35). How long was He to be in heaven at God's right hand? "For he must reign, until he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death" (1 Corinthians 15:25-26). Furthermore, in referring to the ascension, the Bible speaks of Christ as He "whom the heavens must receive until the restitution of all things" (Acts 3:21). Christ did not come to America—because He has been in heaven since His ascension.

• In the Bible, the name "Jesus" was announced first by an angel (to Mary; Luke 1:31). This was in 1 B.C. However, Alma 19:29, dated in the Book of Mormon at 90 B.C., has a woman speaking to the Lord and calling him "Jesus." Which account is accurate?

• The Bible teaches that the church was established on the Day of Pentecost following the resurrection of Christ (Acts 2), which would have been approximately A.D. 33. However, Mosiah 18:17, dated at 145 B.C., has the church already in existence. This represents quite a discrepancy, to say the least. Obviously, both cannot be correct. [NOTE: This same reference from Mosiah also mentions "baptism" as the means of being added to the church. However, according to the Bible the baptism taught by Christ did not begin until New Testament times (Matthew 28: 19).]

• The Bible clearly reveals that the disciples of Christ "were called Christians first in Antioch" (Acts 11:26). This was approximately A.D. 40. However, Alma 46:13,15, dated at 73 B.C., has people already wearing the name "Christian"—which represents a difference of over 100 years. Which account are people to believe?

• The Book of Mormon teaches that "Melchizedek...did reign under his father" (Alma 13:18). Yet the Bible reveals that Melchizedek was a priest under no one. His priesthood typified the priesthood of Christ, and therefore was unique. In contrast to the Book of Mormon, the Bible states that Melchizedek was "without father, without mother, without descent"—emphasizing that he did not inherit his priesthood (Hebrews 7:3). The writer of the Book of Mormon did not know his Bible very well.

• Ether 3:8-9 speaks of God having "flesh and blood." Yet the Bible states clearly that God is a "spirit," and thus does not possess a material body (John 4:24). In Doctrine and Covenants, another allegedly inspired writing of the Mormon church, Joseph Smith wrote: "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's" (section 130:22). The Bible and the Book of Mormon both cannot be correct on this point.

• Mosiah 2:3 states: "And they also took of the firstlings of their flocks, that they might offer sacrifice and burnt offerings, according to the law of Moses." This represents a blatant contradiction with the Bible, because the firstlings of the flocks were to be reserved for the Lord and given to the priests. They were never used for sacrifice (see Exodus 13:2,12; 22:29-30; Numbers 3:13; 18:15-18; 2 Samuel 24:24).

• 3 Nephi 18:28-29 speaks of those who are "unworthy" to partake of the communion, and suggests that such people should be forbidden to partake. This is an obvious reference to Paul's discussion in 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 (in fact, the Book of Mormon has a footnote to that effect). The application made here, however, shows that the writer of the Book of Mormon did not understand what Paul was saying, and as a result ended up with a serious misinterpretation. Paul was not discussing man's personal worthiness, or lack thereof. Rather, he was discussing the manner in which the communion was being partaken. The context makes this clear. The word "unworthily" is an adverb of manner, and points to the way or manner in which a thing is done. The church at Corinth was abusing the communion in the manner they were observing it by turning it into a common meal. The American Standard Version evokes the correct idea by employing the phrase, "in an unworthy manner." By misinterpreting the word "unworthy," the writer unknowingly demonstrated that his work was manmade. It makes sense that if the translator of the Book of Mormon was guided by God, the volume would not contain such conspicuous contradictions with the Bible.

Modern Mormon leaders claim that in the translation process, all mistakes were corrected as they were detected. This implies, then, that God somehow must have failed to detect these mistakes—a position that impugns the nature and integrity of God.

[the_last_gunslinger]

• The Bible says that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1). However, the Book of Mormon reads: "And behold, he shall be born of Mary at Jerusalem" (Alma 7:10). The writer of the Book of Mormon simply did not have his facts straight. The common Mormon explanation for this is that since Jerusalem was so close to Bethlehem, it could be said he was born there. However, in the Bible, prophets of God did not make it a practice of just being "close" in their predictions. God would not have made such a mistake.

No conflict here.  The town of Bethlehem is in the "land of Jerusalem." In fact, Bethlehem is only 5 miles south of Jerusalem: definitely "in the land," especially from the perspective of Alma, a continent away. Even locals considered Hebron, twenty five miles from Bethlehem, to be in the "land of Jerusalem." Not only does this usage make sense within the context of Alma, citing the more famous Jerusalem as a point of reference, it is also consistent with Ancient Middle Eastern usage. Consider an el Amarna letter # 220, (dated at 1549/1550 BC to 1292 BC which reads thusly, "a town of the land of Jerusalem, Bit-Lahmi [Bethlehem] by name, a town belonging to the king, has gone over to the side of the people of Keilah." So actually, this phrase in proof of authenticity, since such usage was not widely known at the time, (the Amarna letters were not found until 1887). Had the book been a fraud, it would have overlooked such an authentic detail.
Never mind the fact that EVERYONE knows that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. It defies logic to assume that a book that got so much right would err on perhaps the most famous location in the entire Bible.

• The Bible relates that at the crucifixion there were three hours of darkness (Luke 23:44). However, the Book of Mormon states there was darkness "for the space of three days" (Helaman 14:20,27). Of course, this is a big difference. Which one is true? Can God be responsible for conflicting statements such as these?

No conflict here either. The Old World experienced three hours of darkness, and the new world experienced three days. God is all powerful, clearly he can give differing degrees of light to different parts of the world.

• The Book of Mormon relates that at the tower of Babel the Jaredites had their separate language (Esther 1:34-35). The Bible, however, plainly states that "the whole earth was of one language" (Genesis 11:1). Apparently, the writer of the Book of Mormon mistakenly thought there were many different languages and that God confounded them while sparing the language of the Jaredites. The fact is, there was only one language and God confounded the people by creating different languages.

Again, no issue. You misread Ether. It doesn't say that Jared and his people had their own language. It says that they pleaded with the Lord that "that he will not confound us (meaning Jared and his family, friends) that we may not understand our words." The Jaredites spoke that same universal language. They just asked for divine mercy that they would still be able to communicate with each other and escape His wrath.

• 3 Nephi 11:8-10 claims that after Jesus ascended to heaven, He appeared in America to the Lamanites and Nephites in A.D. 34. However, this clearly contradicts the Bible. Of the ascension of Christ to heaven God said, "Sit thou on my right hand until I make thy foes thy footstools" (Acts 2:34-35). How long was He to be in heaven at God's right hand? "For he must reign, until he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death" (1 Corinthians 15:25-26). Furthermore, in referring to the ascension, the Bible speaks of Christ as He "whom the heavens must receive until the restitution of all things" (Acts 3:21). Christ did not come to America—because He has been in heaven since His ascension.

You are correct. Jesus was to remain in heaven until the restitution of all things. We're in agreement. But...what IS the restitution of all things? It is nothing less than the restoration of Christ's church in its fulness. Jesus was to remain in heaven during the dark period of apostasy, but he would again return to the earth to usher in the restitution of all things, the gospel and all that pertains to it. This occurred when Jesus Christ appeared to the Prophet Joseph Smith in the Spring of 1820.

• In the Bible, the name "Jesus" was announced first by an angel (to Mary; Luke 1:31). This was in 1 B.C. However, Alma 19:29, dated in the Book of Mormon at 90 B.C., has a woman speaking to the Lord and calling him "Jesus." Which account is accurate?

This passage never says that this is the first instance that the name JESUS was revealed. All it is is a command to Mary that she shall call him by that name. Do you believe it is beyond God's power to reveal the name of His son to prophets before this period?

• The Bible teaches that the church was established on the Day of Pentecost following the resurrection of Christ (Acts 2), which would have been approximately A.D. 33. However, Mosiah 18:17, dated at 145 B.C., has the church already in existence. This represents quite a discrepancy, to say the least. Obviously, both cannot be correct. [NOTE: This same reference from Mosiah also mentions "baptism" as the means of being added to the church. However, according to the Bible the baptism taught by Christ did not begin until New Testament times (Matthew 28: 19).

Thankfully, we have modern day Scriptures that enlighten us further. We know that the gospel in its fulness was first preached to Adam, and to subsequent prophets ever since. You reject any Scripture outside the Bible, so clearly, you are going to see the issue differently than I. Besides which, Acts 2 never says Pentecost was the beginning of Christ's church. Pentecost was just the day that the gift of the Holy Ghost was given, which was necessary, given that the people had fallen into a state of apostasy and no longer had the guidance of the Spirit until that time. There is no conflict here with the Book of Mormon.

• The Bible clearly reveals that the disciples of Christ "were called Christians first in Antioch" (Acts 11:26). This was approximately A.D. 40. However, Alma 46:13,15, dated at 73 B.C., has people already wearing the name "Christian"—which represents a difference of over 100 years. Which account are people to believe

The Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient Nephite text. The English word "Christian" is not the word that was originally on the Nephite record, but is the English word that Joseph Smith used when translating the original Nephite word. The word "Christian" simply means "Christ-believer" in common use and in the Book of Mormon. We don't know what the original Nephite word was for "Christian", but it signified something like "Christ-believer." The word "Christ" is a Greek word that means the same thing as the Hebrew word "Messiah." The concept of a future Messiah was taught in ancient Israel, and anyone who believed those prophecies would have been a "Messiah-believer". Therefore, all pre-Christian era Israelites who believed in the coming Messiah/Christ were Christians in this sense. This is the sense we find in the Book of Mormon. There is no conflict here.

• The Book of Mormon teaches that "Melchizedek...did reign under his father" (Alma 13:18). Yet the Bible reveals that Melchizedek was a priest under no one. His priesthood typified the priesthood of Christ, and therefore was unique. In contrast to the Book of Mormon, the Bible states that Melchizedek was "without father, without mother, without descent"—emphasizing that he did not inherit his priesthood (Hebrews 7:3). The writer of the Book of Mormon did not know his Bible very well.

This is exactly what we believe. From the LDS New Testament Student Manuel on this verse, we read, "This phrasing indicates that, unlike the Levitical or Aaronic order in ancient times, the Melchizedek Priesthood is not conferred based on lineage alone."
On the contrary, it is YOU who does not know the Book of Mormon very well. In context, its statement that Melchizedek reigned under his father, is in regards to his reign as KING OF SALEM, not in regards to the Priesthood he holds.

• Ether 3:8-9 speaks of God having "flesh and blood." Yet the Bible states clearly that God is a "spirit," and thus does not possess a material body (John 4:24). In Doctrine and Covenants, another allegedly inspired writing of the Mormon church, Joseph Smith wrote: "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's" (section 130:22). The Bible and the Book of Mormon both cannot be correct on this point.

No, the Bible does not say God is A Spirit. There are no indefinite articles in Greek. The letter A and the word IS was inserted at the discretion of the translators. The proper translation reads "God  Spirit." But does that mean that is all God is? No. The Bible also says God is Love. Does that mean God is literally the feeling of love and nothing else? Of course not. Hebrews 12:20 says God is a consuming fire. Is God just that? Because if he is ONLY a consuming fire, He can't ALSO be only a Spirit. Further, if you take this to its natural conclusion, this verse ends by saying we must worship him in spirit. What, are we to leave our physical bodies in order to worship him? Also, you accept that Christ is God, yet it is indisputable that he has a tangible body of flesh and bones. He showed it to his disciples upon his resurrection. If God is ONLY a spirit, how can God the Son have a physical body, unless you think Jesus wasn't divine??? See where such an erroneous line of thinking leads? Besides which, there is no conflict because God IS a spirit, housed in a physical body.

Not only that, but you misrtead Ether 3:8. It states that the finger of the lord was in the appearance of a flesh and blood man, not that God was flesh and blood. We teach that God has flesh and bone, yes, but blood is purely a mortal substance.

• Mosiah 2:3 states: "And they also took of the firstlings of their flocks, that they might offer sacrifice and burnt offerings, according to the law of Moses." This represents a blatant contradiction with the Bible, because the firstlings of the flocks were to be reserved for the Lord and given to the priests. They were never used for sacrifice (see Exodus 13:2,12; 22:29-30; Numbers 3:13; 18:15-18; 2 Samuel 24:24).

Wrong again. It is true that firstlings were not used for the normal burnt offering. However it is a mistake to think that they were not sacrificed at all. Under Mosaic law as given in Exodus 13:12 and 15 the firstborn of flocks and herds were dedicated to the Lord and were to be given to the Levites for their use. Other Israelites were forbidden to use them for work or economic gain (see Deuteronomy 15:19–20). On appointed occasions, the people were to take those firstlings to the temple where they would be slain as sacrifices. Deuteronomy 12:5–6 commanded that to the designated sacrificial altar "ye shall bring your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes . . . and the firstlings of your herds and of your flocks." Their blood was to be sprinkled on the altar and their fat burned (see Deuteronomy 18:17–18). What was left of the meat then was given to the individual making the offering for him and his family to eat in a specified place (see Deuteronomy 15:19–20). Thus we see that the statement in the book of Mosiah that firstling animals were brought to the temple in Zarahemla and sacrificed is not contrary to the commandments given to Moses.

• 3 Nephi 18:28-29 speaks of those who are "unworthy" to partake of the communion, and suggests that such people should be forbidden to partake. This is an obvious reference to Paul's discussion in 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 (in fact, the Book of Mormon has a footnote to that effect). The application made here, however, shows that the writer of the Book of Mormon did not understand what Paul was saying, and as a result ended up with a serious misinterpretation. Paul was not discussing man's personal worthiness, or lack thereof. Rather, he was discussing the manner in which the communion was being partaken. The context makes this clear. The word "unworthily" is an adverb of manner, and points to the way or manner in which a thing is done. The church at Corinth was abusing the communion in the manner they were observing it by turning it into a common meal. The American Standard Version evokes the correct idea by employing the phrase, "in an unworthy manner." By misinterpreting the word "unworthy," the writer unknowingly demonstrated that his work was manmade. It makes sense that if the translator of the Book of Mormon was guided by God, the volume would not contain such conspicuous contradictions with the Bible.

You are making the assumption that simply footnoting a passage of comparable language is an attempt to imply that these two verses are saying the same thing. In reality, what Paul said, whether relevant to Sacramental worthiness, is of little consequence. The doctrine is still true. If one is living out of harmony with the gospel, one should not make a mockery of "communion" by taking it (which we do to renew our baptismal covenants) if we have no desire to do what we are promising. Also, an important note to remember is that the foot notes are NOT scripture. They were not part of the translated text made possible by the power of God. The foot notes were inserted by Man sometime in the twentieth century, and as a result, might not always be as relevant as we would like.

[KiwiChristian]

i see this gunslinger fool is still trying to prove his cult is correct.

all his so-called rebuttles are easily refuted.

[DiscipleDave]

KiwiChristian said

i see this gunslinger fool is still trying to prove his cult is correct.

all his so-called rebuttles are easily refuted.

Are True Christians to Love One Another or call names?