(Entire letter is found at http://www.alphamin.org/LETTERS/MAINPAGE.htm I will try to keep as much relevent material from James as possible but remove filler stuff to keep reading as short as possible but one can go to the link cited to get all of James comments so nobody can say I am taking things out of context nor not giving access to read the entire context--Something few LDS critics do.)
That is not really unusual, but I feel that it should be pointed out to you that providing a list of supposed "contradictions" is not the same as dealing with the direct claims of Scripture. Your approach, instead, is to deny the teachings of the Bible by providing examples of alleged errors that would, by their presence, disprove the words of Scripture. I hope you will consider further the Bible's own teachings about itself.When LDS provide examples of contradictions, our intent is not to deny the teachings of the Bible. Why should we deny the Bible which is one of our Standard Works of Scripture? Our only intent is to show that the Bible is not perfect like many LDS critics claim. The Bible can have minor, trivial contradictions and still be legitimate, inspired teachings from God. One need not suppose that the scriptures are like a glass house and completely shatters at the presense of contradictions or other errors. I wish there were no contradictions at all but one has to be honest that there exist. Finally the Bible does not teach about itself since it did not exist in the days it was written.
The list of "contradictions" you have provided to me is a common one -- at times I think that this list, or one very similar to it, is a part of the "missionary training packet" that is passed out to every new missionary before being sent out into the field. I say that because of the fact that these same passages keep coming up over and over again as I speak with representatives of the LDS Church.I can assure James that no lists are ever given to LDS missionaries in any packet they are given in the Missionary Training Center in Provo. I never got one and I know of no other missionary to have received one. I find this comment funny as this is what I see from Anti-Mormons material that is all repetitive. One can purchase any book critical of the LDS church and compare it to another book that is critical of the LDS church and over 80% of the issues are brough up in both and are explained in the exact same way. Sometimes they use the exact same words. This is why if one reads one Anti-Mormon book they have pretty much read them all.
In fact, the very first time anyone at all attempted to prove to me that the Bible was contradictory to itself was when I met with my first pair of Mormon missionaries -- and, interestingly enough, the passage they threw at me was the first one you listed in your letter.Do not critics like Mr White also join the hands with atheists when they attempt to bring up contradictions in the LDS scriptures and LDS doctrines. Why does not James mention that fact? Oh, I forgot he is one of them and that would make James a hypocrite. As was stated already the reason why we bring them up is to show the scriptures in the Bible are not 100% perfect and the Bible is not accurate on ever single detail but it does not have to be to be trustworthy and a valid source of knowing God's words. It also is to counter the examples that Anti-Mormons like to do in claiming contradictions between the Book of Mormon and the Bible and Book of Mormon and other LDS scriptures. Even if there are contradictions in the LDS scriptures, they are no mor damning to the Book of Mormon and D&C than the contradictions that are brought up in the Bible. So if the Bible is okay dispite the existence of them then so are the other books. I would also say that these contradictions that James White brushes off would not be brushed off if they were found in the Book of Mormon instead.Before I address these particular passages, I would like to point something out to you, Elder Hahn. Have you ever thought about the fact that you have to join hands with atheists and other enemies of the Christian faith in your attacks upon the Bible I have spoken with, and corresponded with, many, many atheists over the past few years, and the supposed "contradictions" they speak about are the same as those you have provided to me. Surely your reasons are a little different than theirs, but, in the final analysis, may I suggest to you that you have to attack the validity and accuracy of the Bible in order to find a way to establish your "other" scriptures.
Mr White also needs to understand that the LDS scriptures don't need to be established in the minds of the LDS. If people chose not to accept them, that is not our problem. And once again, Mr White falsely claims that we are attacking the Bible but we are only attacking a particular position or viewpoint some people have about the Bible. That is quite different than attacking the Bible itself.
If the Bible is what it claims, the inspired, sufficient revelation of God, then there is no need for any other writings, including yours. Not only this, but I believe the attacks made upon the accuracy of the Bible by the LDS Church are necessary so that the clear and evident contradictions between the teaching of the Bible and LDS theology can be dismissed with as little difficulty as possible. Hopefully, we shall be able to get into those particular Biblical teachings in a short time.The problem the Bible NEVER claims to be the inspired sufficient revelation of God therefore there is no need to assume that we don't need any other writings. We are once again not attacking the Bible but a false view of the Bible. There is no contradictions between the Bible and LDS theology but we should point out again that is not Mr White joining the hands of atheists in attempting to do the same things they do?
Your list of "contradictions" in the Bible is actually very well suited for my purposes, in that the passages you cite provide me with good examples of various kinds of errors made by those who attack the accuracy of God's Word. (I'm sorry if that description offends you, but, you must admit it is an accurate representation.)As I have noted, there is nothing accurate about it but then this whole book is lacking in accuracy but we should not expect anything different in an Anti-Mormon book. Mr White then proceeds to address some Bible contradictions. He first brings up Acts 9:7 where it says that the men wiht Paul heared the voice of Jesus where Acts 22:9 says the did not hear the voice. He says:
In providing the following information to you, I am not attempting simply to "bury" you under a mountain of citations and quotes; I am, however, attempting to show you how important in-depth Bible study is. A very precious few are those who have objected to my belief in the inerrancy of the Bible who have demonstrated their position on the basis of real, solid research.Mr White then proceeds to show that there is no contradiction in between these two passages showing that the voice was in Hebrew and the men with Paul did not understand the voice since they did not speak or know Hebrew so both passages are correct. I don't claim to be a Greek expert (I have no reason to believe that Mr White is one either since he does not have a degree in the subject from any accredited school) so I will assume that Mr White has been completely accurate. (I know I am running a risk). Ok we don't have a contradiction. I am glad we don't have one. The fewer the better but it still does not address the broader issues. That Mr White is trying to do is claim that if he can find one or even a few innocent people in a prison, it proves that all the inmates in the prison are innocent. The fact is the LDS church itself has never called this issue a contradiction. Only some LDS members have raised the issue. Actually the first time I learned of evidence this example should not be considered a contradiction was in an LDS book "Biblical Mormonism" by Richard Hopkins p. 33.
Finally, it must be stated that part and parcel of dealing with almost any ancient or even modern writing is the basic idea that the author gets the benefit of the doubt. It is highly unlikely that a writer will contradict himself within short spans of time or space. Luke was a careful historian, and it is sheer speculation that he would be so forgetful as to forget what he wrote in Acts 9 by the time he wrote Acts 22. Some critics of the Bible seem to forget the old axiom "innocent until proven guilty." The person who will not allow for the harmonization of the text (as we did above) is in effect claiming omniscience of all the facts surrounding an event that took place nearly two millennia ago. Most careful scholars do not make such claims. The above presented explanation is perfectly reasonable, it coincides with the known facts, and does not engage in unwarranted "special pleading." If you wish to continue to claim that Acts 9:7 contradicts Acts 22:9, Elder Hahn, there is little I or anyone else can do about that. But realize that (1) your position cannot be proven; (2) you are operating on unproven assumptions (Luke was not intelligent enough to notice a contradiction in his own writing); and (3) there is a perfectly logical explanation, based on the original languages and contexts.I agree James and in the same spirit we can apply the same thoughts to the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith and many things. So some critics of the Book of Mormon seem to forget the old axiom "innocent until proven guilty." The person who will not allow for the harmonization of the text is in effect claiming omniscience of all the facts surrounding an event that took place over a century ago. Most careful scholars do not make such claims....But realize that the Anti-Mormon position cannot be proven; (2) the Anti-Mormon positions are operating on unproven assumptions (Joseph Smith was not intelligent enough to notice a contradiction in his own writing); and (3) there is a perfectly logical explanation when one looks at the entire context, conditions and requirements regarding the issue."
I want you to see, however, that attacking the accuracy of the Bible on the basis of our own misunderstanding of a translated text (i.e., our understanding of the English translation) is not a wise, nor correct, procedure. The King James Version's translation is not a mistranslation in and of itself; if we wish to ask "what does it mean to 'hear' a voice" then we need to ask that question of the original text as well as the translated one. At this point, in the past, I have had many LDS say, "hey, you are getting real complicated here, and I think you are just trying to hide something. You don't need to know all this Greek stuff -- the Apostles were simple men who were unlearned and untrained."I have never heard any LDS advocate this position in my life. It is true that knowing Greek or Hebrew is not a requirement of the LDS church but its good to learn things as much as one can. I learn things here and there from Greek and Hebrew and its only enhanced my faith in the LDS faith. The Apostles were simple men and I think the point is they were worried more about the overall message then the exact words they used. I think people tend to nit-pick the Greek and Hebrew to an extent that the Bible writers would never have dreamed of. I don't think they were concerned about using this Hebrew or Greek word over another as much as the message. Some people get too caught up in details that the miss the beauty of the overall message.
While the Apostles (with the notable exception of Paul) may have been unlearned and untrained, that has little if anything to do with the current topic, that being supposed errors in the Bible. Unlearned and untaught men can receive great truth from God. But they are also unlikely candidates to be attacking the veracity and accuracy of God's revelation as well. You won't find the Apostles doing that!The issues that the Apostles dealt with in the New Testament writings did not address that issue. Either it was not an issue that existed at that time or they did address it at other times but they were just not included in those particular writings they wrote. What is clear is we don't have a day to day account of every idle issue the Apostles spoke on or addressed over the years they were alive. What is clear is they were concerned about it being preverted. So much so that John included a warning in the last part of the Book of Revelation warning people not to corrupt the Book of Revelation. (See Rev 22:18-19) So he at lest was concerned about how long the accuracy of his work would last.
So, when others, such as yourself, Elder Hahn, come against the Scriptures and accuse them of error, that is far different than an untrained, unlearned, humble man receiving grace and knowledge from God.What Mr White fails to understand that many men of higher education, with more training, with doctorates from respected universites than Mr White have declared that the Bible has errors.
You must demonstrate that you have truly examined the issues, and done your homework, before making allegations such as these. The issues we must deal with -- Greek, Hebrew, translation, transmission, history, grammar -- all of these, are "scholarly" issues, requiring study and work. Let's move on to your other "contradictions." The next on your list was Matthew 27:9-10 in comparison with Zechariah 11:12-13.Matthew 27:9-10 "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me."
Zechariah 11:12-13 "And I said unto them, If ye think good, give [me] my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty [pieces] of silver. And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty [pieces] of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD."
Matthew writes, into one statement about the Lord Jesus. Since Jeremiah is the "major" prophet, and Zechariah his "junior," then the major prophet's name is used. A similar thing happens in Mark 1:2-3, where prophecies from both Isaiah and Malachi are put together in one quotation. So, as we can see, there are at least two plausible explanations as to why Matthew would cite this passage the way that he did, and not be in "error" for having done so. Surely it can be said that it is not possible to prove that Matthew was in error and made such an obvious "mistake" for no purpose. Is there any particular reason why the Biblical writers should be given less credit for their knowledge of the Scriptures than a modern writer. Why should we believe Matthew to be so ignorant of the Old Testament.? The idea that there was a purpose to his words is logical and rational.Though this is plausible, it not provable. Its also equally possible that it was a scribal mistake or that author of Matthew simply made a mistake. These are just as likely. Failure to consider possible alternative possiblities is the fallacy of false dilemma. Also where does it say anything about major and junior prophets in the scriptures. I do understand some people like to group prophets into major and minor categories but such things are hardly required or stated in the scriptures themselves. So there care a number of possible reasons why this contradictions exists but the fact is as it stands, its a contradiction though not a very important one. We can also say in response to the examples of contradictions that Mr White would bring up "Why should we believe Joseph Smith to be so ignorant of his own revelations given to him from God and the Book of Mormon? The idea that there was a purpose to his words is logical and rational."
Mr White then proceeds to address the contradiction in Matthew 27:45, Mark 15:33-34 and Luke 23:44 which all state that Jesus was crucified in the 3rd hour and darkness existed from the 6th to the 9th hour when Jesus died while John 19:14 appears to contradict them. It assertss that Jesus was not even crucified yet at the 6th hour. He brings up the issue that Matthrew, Mark and Luke are referring how the Jews reckoned times from sunset to sunrise so the 6th hour would be around noon and the ninth hour would be around 3 P.M. John is referring to how the Romans viewed time similar to hour own so their 6th hour would be around 6 A.M. when the Jewish day was beginning. Though it can't be proven completely, this is a plausible and reasonable answer by Mr White.
You brought up Matthew 4:18-20 which speaks of Jesus calling Peter and Andrew to follow Him. They immediately leave their nets and follow Him. Then, you cite John 1:40-42 and the fact that here Andrew, being a disciple of John the Baptist, went and found his brother Peter and said "we have found the Messiah!" You asked, "which account is true" I say, both are! See, you don't have to take one to the exclusion of the other, as long as you don't make one very big assumption -- that the encounter of Jesus with Peter and Andrew on the beach was the first time they had ever met....Andrew is a follower of John the Baptist. He goes and gets his brother Peter, and he meets Jesus. Then a period of time elapses -- whether Peter and Andrew are with Jesus during the whole of this period of time or not is difficult to say -- but at some point Peter and Andrew are back at their business, that of fishing. Jesus comes along and calls them away permanently from their work, calling them to the life of a full-time disciple, and, later, of an apostle.... If the incident of Matthew 4:18-20 was the first time they had ever met Jesus, that would indeed be strange. But, taking the whole of Scripture into account, we see that it is in full harmony with itself -- this wasn't the first time they had met. I might add in passing,This is also plausible though the Inspired Version or Joseph Smith Translation has this to add in the Matthew account that help give a few more details where it says "And he saith unto them, I am he of whom it is written by the prophets; follow me, and I will make you fishers of men."
Next Mr White brings up the issue of Mark 6:8 where it says the diciples could bring a staff while Luke 9:3 says they were not to bring one. He resolves it by Matthew 10:10 which has Jesus telling them not to aquire or provide themselves with one if they did not have it. So they could take a staff if they already owned one but were not to obtain one if they did not already own one. Mark and Luke are only giving partial information that is not contradictory. Mr White makes a reasonable explaination to the issue but it still does not resolve why Mark and Luke only gave partial information. I mean, if Mark and Luke are God's Word, then surely it would not cut corners, right James? Suppose that Matthew account did not mention it, then we would have real problems which leads to an overall bigger problem. The vast majority of passages in the Bible do not have parallel passages that one can check with in other places for accuracy or consistency. We just have to hope that the author of those passages made a full account without cutting any corners like Mark and Luke did in these instances. So even the original manuscripts could be incomplete and omit important information that could totally change the meaning of a passage. This issue creates uncertainty about how well things are recorded in the Bible period.
When (1) the original languages are allowed to have their say, (2) the historical contexts are examined, (3) harmonization between different accounts of the same event is allowed, (4) the authors are recognized to be intelligent, cognizant beings who were not given to contradicting themselves in every other word, the vast majority of commonly presented "contradictions" are shown to be based more upon a desire to prove the Bible wrong than they are upon any defect in the Bible itself.I say fine to all this but then lets not be a hypocrite then James White. Do the same things and put the same energy in resolving the alleged problems that you bring up with the Book of Mormon and the Bible and other problems you always seem to create when trying to find a problem with LDS doctrine. The vast majority of problems you bring up with the Book of Mormon is more upon a desire to prove the Book of Mormon wrong then they are upon any defect in the Book of Mormon itself. Mr White then jumps to the issue of "missing" books of the Bible and he mentions a few examples. A better list, which includes the items he mentions is as follows.
1. Book
of the wars of the Lord (Num 21:14)
2. Book
of Jasher (Josh 10:13, 2 Sam 1:18)
3. Book
of the acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41)
4. Book
of Samual the seer (1 Chron 29:29)
5. Book
of Gad the seer (1 chr. 29:29)
6. Book
of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29:29, 2 Chr. 9:29)
7. Prophecy
of Ahijah, visions of Iddo the seer (2 chr. 9:29)
8. Book
of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12:15)
9. Book
of Jehu (2 chr.20:34)
10. Sayings
of the seers (2 Chr. 33:19)
11. Paul's earlier
epistle to Ephesians (Eph. 3:3)
12. 1 Corinthians 5:9 "I wrote you in an epistle not to company with fornicators." There should be 3 epistles to the Corithians in the Bible, not just 2. Its even possible that other written were written to them but we know at least 1 is missing.
13. Colossians. 4:16 "And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea." The Laodicea epistle is clearly shown to be on the same level as Colossians.
14. Enoch's prophecies known to Jude (Jude 1:14). Where is Jude citing? Not found in the Bible but clearly it is scripture. Obviously Enoch did A LOT more than what is written of him in Genesis 5:21-24
15. Matthew 2:23 "And he came and swelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, he shall be called a Nazarene." This prophecy is not found in the Old Testament. At least it is not in our current Old Testament. Some have tried to use passages like Judges 13:5 as a potential source but this has nothing to do with the Savior.
16. Acts 20:35 "...remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive." This quote does not appear an any of the 4 gospels and Paul is writing to those who were not around to hear Christ say this so what was Paul referring them to? There must have been a written record of Jesus saying this that existed in those days that got lost.
20. John 21:25 “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written”
21. John 7:38 "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water" What scripture is Jesus quoting from? Clearly its scripture as Jesus identifies it as such. The source is not found in the modern Old or New Testament and not known in any pseudiopigraphal book today.
Now, you wrote, Clearly these books have been lost from the Bible. How can you say the Bible is complete when all these books are missing Might they not teach things that are important This is why we need latter-day revelation to restore that which is missing in the Bible. Aside from the fact that the Book of Mormon itself refers to records that are not contained in it (like the "prophecies of Zenos" mentioned in 1 Nephi 19:10 and elsewhere), I have to ask why every person who has made the allegation that the Bible is "missing books" thinks that the Bible cannot mention the existence of any other writing without making that writing a part of the canon of Scripture?
Many of the books mentioned above were obviously secular in nature; that is, they were public or royal records.And how does Mr White know this. Since these books are lost, they have not been read and if they have not been read, how can he claim they are simply secular in nature. Is he judging a book by the title or cover? I learned in grade school that one should not do that. Could we not also use that philosophy with books found in the Bible. The book of Judges sounds like a book about the law. I guess we could eliminate that. There is a lot of secular stuff in the Bible as well. Should we eliminate those portions since they are not religious or spiritual?
Many of the books mentioned above were obviously secular in nature; that is, they were public or royal records. Why do you say these books were supposed to be part of Scripture. Why cannot the Bible even mention the existence of secular writings without making those writings part of the Scriptures? If the Bible were being written today, and the Bible were to mention, for example, a national newspaper, would that automatically make the newspaper part of Scripture? For example, let's say that a prophet of God was attacked in an editorial written in a particular newspaper. The writer of Scripture mentions this. Does this mean that the newspaper becomes part of the inspired Word of God . . . if so, for what reason? So, when I Kings 11:41 mentions the "book of the acts of Solomon," it would be similar to mentioning the Congressional Record or something of that kind. But why do you believe that these books were ever considered to be Scripture by the people of GodThis is such nonsense. On what justification can he make this claim that books of the acts of Solomon is simply a bunch of secular stuff? By the name? Even if it contains a lot of secular stuff, it may also contain a lot of spiritual stuff as well. Should we through out the book of Kings because that name give the impression its about royalty and a bunch of secular kings? The fact is Mr White can't make a legitimate case against these books because he can't make a legitimate case for his canon which he claim's is sufficient.
Some of the books mentioned in the Bible were clearly of a religious nature, such as the records of Nathan the prophet or the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite. But again, why believe that these were ever meant to be part of the Bible?Why believe they were ment to be excluded. Why believe that there is nothing important or inspired in them? The Bible canon was put together not by God or a prophet of God but by a group of men in the late 4th century. Why should we think that they got all the that was supposed to be in the Bible.
The same example as used above is relevant here. If the Bible were being written today, and a particular religious leader was mentioned, and, rather than listing everything that this particular person did, the writer of Scripture were to say, "now, the rest that this person did is written in this book . . .," does that book automatically become inspired because the Scripture writer refers someone to it for further information, if they desire it? I don't believe so, do you?This is true but who says that Mr White's example is the example for these books? He is simply guessing and hoping that we will accept his ideas but there is no substance behind it.
Finally, you mentioned the "epistle from Laodicea" in Colossians 4:16. Again, I see no reason to call this a "lost book" if God never intended it to be in the Bible in the first place.Where does it list in the Bible what books God intended to be in the Bible and what he did not? How do you know that that document is not scripture? Can you prove it?
Surely, if God wishes a book to be in His Word, He can manage to get it there.Sure God could but remember God did not compile the Bible either. It was a group of men in the 4th century A.D. Hundreds of years after the lasts books found in the Bible were written. I could make the charge that if God wished for Christians to have a Bible, surely he would not have waited so long do to it. He would have given the christians in the 1st century a Bible. Now wait 300 years later!!!!!!! Perhaps Mr White says God here, he men's the men from the 4th century who decided on what was to be in the Bible and what was not.
But, in this particular instance, we probably do have this letter. Which one, you ask Well, the book of Ephesians seems to have been written as a "circular letter" that was intended to be read in various churches in different places. Many Bible scholars feel that the letter we know as Ephesians is actually the same letter referred to in Colossians, and, if it is, then we do have the letter mentioned here.Now wait a minute. First he claims this should not be a lost book because God never intended for it to be in the Bible and then claims that this is actually the Book of Ephesians therefore God did intend for it to be in the Bible. Mr White needs to make up his mind. I would like to see what the basis for his claim or these "scholars" claim that this is the case. Mr White claim also assume that only certain books were intended to be "circular". If that is the case then why are the non-circular books in the Bible. After all if a certain writing was only intended for a certain group of people and not another group, then obviously its not intened for us today as nobody today was alive 2000 years ago. So there is no reason to have Corinthians in the Bible since those writing were only intended to be read and have meaning for them. Is this what you are saying Mr White?
BOTTOM
LINE --- THE BIBLE IS NOT COMPLETE, INERRANT, ALL SUFFICENT, AND INFALLIBLE
BUT THAT SHOULD NOT CAUSE ANYONE A PROBLEM AS IT DOES NOT CLAIM TO BE COMPLETE,
INERRANT, ALL SUFFICIENT AND INFALLIBLE
I am not going to list a whole lot of contradictions as one can cite hundreds of examples that exist in the Bible as that is not my desire but they do exist. Here are just a few.
2 Samuel 8:4 "And David took from him a thousand [chariots], and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: and David houghed all the chariot [horses], but reserved of them [for] an hundred chariots." vs. 1 Chronicles 18:4 "And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: David also houghed all the chariot [horses], but reserved of them an hundred chariots."1 Kings 9:23 "These [were] the chief of the officers that [were] over Solomon's work, five hundred and fifty, which bare rule over the people that wrought in the work." vs. 2 Chronicles 8:10 "And these [were] the chief of king Solomon's officers, [even] two hundred and fifty, that bare rule over the people."
2 Kings 8:26 "Two and twenty years old [was] Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name [was] Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel." vs. 2 Chronicles 22:2 "Forty and two years old [was] Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also [was] Athaliah the daughter of Omri."
2 Samuel 6:23 "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death." vs 2 Samuel 21:8 "But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:"