A DIFFERENT LOOK AT THE INQUISITION --GEORGE L. FAULL, REL. D.

http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/a-different-look-at-inquisition-george-l.html

A DIFFERENT LOOK AT THE INQUISITION --GEORGE L. FAULL, REL. D.

 IN ZURICH SWITZERLAND, ON JANUARY 18TH, 1525 AN ORDER WAS GIVEN BY THE ZURICH COUNCIL THAT ALL INFANTS MUST BE BAPTIZED WITHIN 8 DAYS OF BIRTH. THOSE NOT COMPLIANT TO THIS RULING WOULD BE BANISHED FROM ZURICH. ON JANUARY 21ST, ALL OPPONENTS OF THIS DECREE WERE NOT ALLOWED TO MEET OR SPEAK IN PUBLIC.

 THIS LED TO MARTYRDOM AND MANY OF THOSE WHO WERE MARTYRED WERE ANABAPTIST. AN ANABAPTIST IS NOT SPEAKING OF THOSE CALLED BAPTISTS TODAY. THEY WERE A PEOPLE WHO WERE NICKNAMED “ANABAPTIST”. THIS COMES FROM THE GREEK WHICH MEANS “OVER AGAIN” AND “BAPTISM”. SO AN ANABAPTIST IS “ONE WHO BAPTIZES AGAIN!” THEY DID NOT CONSIDER INFANT BAPTISM OR SPRINKLING A RECOGNIZED BAPTISM, SO THEY DID NOT CONSIDER BELIEVER-BAPTISM A REBAPTISM SO THEY REJECTED THE NICKNAME.

 IN MARCH OF 1525, THIS ORDER WAS GIVEN: “YOU KNOW WITHOUT DOUBT, AND HAVE HEARD FROM MANY THAT FOR A LONG TIME, SOME PECULIAR MEN, WHO IMAGINE THAT THEY ARE LEARNED, HAVE COME FORWARD ASTONISHINGLY, AND WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, GIVEN AS A PRETEXT BY SIMPLE AND PIOUS MEN, HAVE PREACHED, AND WITHOUT THE PERMISSION AND CONSENT OF THE CHURCH, HAVE PROCLAIMED THAT INFANT BAPTISM DID NOT PROCEED FROM GOD, BUT FROM THE DEVIL, AND, THEREFORE, OUGHT NOT TO BE PRACTICED… WE, THEREFORE, ORDAIN AND REQUIRE THAT HEREAFTER ALL MEN, WOMEN, BOYS AND GIRLS FORSAKE REBAPTISM, AND SHALL NOT MAKE USE OF IT HEREAFTER, AND SHALL LET INFANTS BE BAPTIZED; WHOEVER SHALL ACT CONTRARY TO THIS PUBLIC EDICT SHALL BE FINED FOR EVERY OFFENSE, ONE MARK; AND IF ANY BE DISOBEDIENT AND STUBBORN THEY SHALL BE TREATED WITH SEVERITY; FOR, THE OBEDIENT WE WILL PROTECT; THE DISOBEDIENT WE WILL PUNISH ACCORDING TO HIS DESERTS, WITHOUT FAIL; BY THIS ALL ARE TO CONDUCT THEMSELVES. ALL THIS WE CONFIRM BY THIS PUBLIC DOCUMENT, STAMPED WITH THE SEAL OF OUR CITY, AND GIVEN ON ST. ANDREW’S DAY, A. D., 1525.”

 RESULTS: FELIX MANZ, HENRY REIMAN, JACOB FALK WERE DROWNED. DECEMBER 1527 THEY WERE TOLD, “HE WHO IMMERSED SHALL BE IMMERSED”. A TOWNSMAN SAID, “THEY LIKE IMMERSION, SO LET US IMMERSE THEM”.

 BALTHASAR HOBMAIER SAID, “THE COMMAND IS TO BAPTIZE THOSE WHO BELIEVE, TO BAPTIZE THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE, THEREFORE IS FORBIDDEN. HE WAS IMPRISONED AND LATER WHEN HE WAS SUPPOSED TO RECANT INSTEAD HE SHOUTED, “INFANT BAPTISM IS NOT OF GOD AND MEN MUST BE BAPTIZED BY FAITH IN CHRIST. I HAVE NEVER TAUGHT ANABAPTISM…BUT THE RIGHT BAPTISM OF CHRIST, WHICH IS PRECEDED BY TEACHING AND ORAL CONFESSION OF FAITH, I TEACH, AND SAY THAT INFANT BAPTISM IS A ROBBERY OF THE RIGHT BAPTISM OF CHRIST.” ON MARCH 10TH, 1528 IN VIENNA, HE WAS BURNED AT THE STAKE AND 8 DAYS LATER, HIS WIFE WAS DROWNED.

 NOT ONLY IN ZURICH AND VIENNA WAS THIS PERSECUTION AGAINST THOSE WHO WERE FOR IMMERSION AND AGAINST INFANT BAPTISM PRACTICED BUT AT ST. GALL, SWITZERLAND THEY ISSUED THIS DECREE – SEPTEMBER 9TH, 1527: “IN ORDER THAT THE DANGEROUS, WICKED, TURBULENT AND SEDITIOUS SECT OF THE BAPTISTS MAY BE ERADICATED, WE HAVE THUS DECREED: IF ANYONE IS SUSPECTED OF REBAPTISM, HE IS TO BE WARNED BY THE MAGISTRACY TO LEAVE THE TERRITORY UNDER PENALTY OF THE DESIGNATED PUNISHMENT [TO BE DROWNED]. EVERY PERSON IS OBLIGED TO REPORT THOSE FAVORABLE TO REBAPTISM. WHOEVER SHALL NOT COMPLY WITH THIS ORDINANCE IS LIABLE TO PUNISHMENT ACCORDING TO THE SENTENCE OF THE MAGISTRACY. TEACHERS OF REBAPTISM, BAPTIZING PREACHERS, AND LEADERS OF HEDGE MEETINGS ARE TO BE DROWNED. THOSE PREVIOUSLY RELEASED FROM PRISON WHO HAVE SWORN TO DESIST FROM SUCH THINGS, SHALL INCUR THE SAME PENALTY. FOREIGN BAPTISTS ARE TO BE DRIVEN OUT; IF THEY RETURN THEY SHALL BE DROWNED. NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO SECEDE FROM THE [ZWINGLIAN] CHURCH AND TO ABSENT HIMSELF FROM THE HOLY SUPPER.”

 THE DECREE ON MARCH 26TH , 1530, WAS EVEN MORE SEVERE: “ALL WHO ADHERE TO OR FAVOR THE FALSE SECT OF THE BAPTISTS, AND WHO ATTEND HEDGE-MEETINGS, SHALL SUFFER THE MOST SEVERE PUNISHMENTS. BAPTIST LEADERS, THEIR FOLLOWERS, AND PROTECTORS SHALL BE DROWNED WITHOUT MERCY. THOSE, HOWEVER, WHO "FROM THE COWARDICE THAT SHRINKS FROM NEW TRUTH, FROM THE LAZINESS THAT IS CONTENT WITH HALFTRUTHS, FROM THE ARROGANCE THAT THINKS IT KNOWS ALL TRUTH, O, GOD OF TRUTH, DELIVER US." ULRICH ZWINGLI 2 THE GOSPEL UNASHAMED JULY 2015 ASSIST THEM, OR FAIL TO REPORT OR TO ARREST THEM SHALL BE PUNISHED OTHERWISE ON BODY AND GOODS AS INJURIOUS AND FAITHLESS SUBJECTS.”

 LIKEWISE, THE GENEVA’S SWITZERLAND COUNCIL IN 1632, HUNG AND BURNED MEN FOR DENYING THE TRINITY. THE SAME PERSECUTION WAS IN DASIL AND BERNE.

 IN GERMANY, LUTHER TAUGHT IMMERSION EVEN TRANSLATING “BAPTIZE” AS “DIP”. HE WROTE THESE WORDS IN 1518: “THE SIGNIFICATION OF BAPTISM DEMANDS, FOR IT SIGNIFIES THAT THE OLD MAN AND SINFUL BIRTH FROM THE FLESH AND BLOOD SHALL BE COMPLETELY DROWNED THROUGH THE GRACE OF GOD.

 THEREFORE, A MAN SHOULD SUFFICIENTLY PERFORM THE SIGNIFICATION AND A RIGHT PERFECT SIGN. THE SIGN RESTS, IN THIS, THAT A MAN PLUNGE A PERSON IN WATER IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, ETC., BUT DOES NOT LEAVE HIM THEREIN BUT LIFTS HIM OUT AGAIN; THEREFORE IT IS CALLED BEING LIFTED OUT OF THE FONT OR DEPTHS. AND SO MUST ALL OF BOTH OF THESE THINGS BE THE SIGN; THE DIPPING AND THE LIFTING OUT. THIRDLY, THE SIGNIFICATION IS A SAVING DEATH OF THE SINS AND OF THE RESURRECTION OF THE GRACE OF GOD. THE BAPTISM IS A BATH OF THE NEW BIRTH. ALSO A DROWNING OF THE SINS IN THE BAPTISM” (LUTHER, OPERA LUTHERI, I. 319. FOLIO EDITION).

 HE ALSO WROTE: “THE TERM BAPTISM IS A GREEK WORD; IT MAY BE RENDERED INTO LATIN BY “MERSIO”: WHEN WE IMMERSE ANYTHING IN WATER, THAT IT MAY BE ENTIRELY COVERED WITH WATER. AND THOUGH THAT CUSTOM BE QUITE ABOLISHED AMONG THE GENERALITY, (FOR NEITHER DO THEY ENTIRELY DIP CHILDREN, BUT ONLY SPRINKLE THEM WITH A LITTLE WATER,) NEVERTHELESS THEY OUGHT TO BE WHOLLY IMMERSED, AND IMMEDIATELY TO BE DRAWN OUT AGAIN, FOR THE ETYMOLOGY OF THE WORD SEEMS TO REQUIRE IT. THE GERMANS CALL BAPTISM “TAUF”, FROM DEPTH, WHICH THEY CALL “TIEF” IN THEIR LANGUAGE; AS IF IT WERE PROPER THOSE SHOULD BE DEEPLY IMMERSED, WHO ARE BAPTIZED. AND TRULY, IF YOU CONSIDER WHAT BAPTISM SIGNIFIES THAT THE OLD MAN AND OUR NATIVE CHARACTER THAT IS FULL OF SIN, ENTIRELY OF FLESH AND BLOOD AS IT IS, MAY BE OVERWHELMED BY DIVINE GRACE. THE MANNER OF BAPTISM, THEREFORE OUGHT TO ANSWER TO THE SIGNIFICATION OF BAPTISM, SO THAT IT MAY SHOW FORTH A SIGN THAT IS CERTAIN AND FULL.” – OPERA

 “WHEN THE WASHING AWAY OF SIN IS ATTRIBUTED TO BAPTISM, IT IS RIGHTLY SO ATTRIBUTED; BUT THE MEANING OF THE PHRASE IS TOO SLIGHT AND WEAK TO FULLY EXPRESS BAPTISM, WHICH IS RATHER A SYMBOL OF DEATH AND RESURRECTION. FOR THIS REASON I COULD WISH THAT THE BAPTIZED SHOULD BE TOTALLY IMMERSED, ACCORDING TO THE MEANING OF THE WORD AND SIGNIFICATION OF THE MYSTERY; NOT THAT I THINK IT NECESSARY TO DO SO, BUT THAT IT WOULD BE WELL THAT SO COMPLETE AND PERFECT THING AS BAPTISM SHOULD HAVE ITS SIGN ALSO IN COMPLETENESS AND PERFECTION, EVEN AS IT WAS DOUBTLESS INSTITUTED BY CHRIST.” – PRIMARY WORKS, P. 192.

 LATER, LUTHER BEGAN TO OPPOSE IMMERSION AND THOSE WHO OPPOSED INFANT BAPTISM. THOUGH HE WAS OPPOSED TO EXECUTING THEM HE WISHED THEM ALL TO BE BANISHED FOR DISAGREEING WITH HIS DOCTRINES. AGAIN, HE CHANGED HIS MIND AND ENCOURAGED THE DESTRUCTION OF PEASANTS WHO REVOLTED FROM THE LORDS SEEKING THEIR FREEDOM.

 HE WROTE: “THE PEASANTS WOULD NOT LISTEN; THEY WOULD NOT LET ANYONE TELL THEM ANYTHING; THEIR EARS MUST BE UNBUTTONED WITH BULLETS, TILL THEIR HEADS JUMP OFF THEIR SHOULDERS. ... ON THE OBSTINATE, HARDENED, BLINDED PEASANTS, LET NO ONE HAVE MERCY, BUT LET EVERYONE, AS HE IS ABLE, HEW, STAB, SLAY, LAY ABOUT HIM AS THOUGH AMONG MAD DOGS, . . . . SO THAT PEACE AND SAFETY MAY BE MAINTAINED...” [MARTIN LUTHER, WERKE, ERLANGEN EDITION, VOL. 24, P. 294; VOL.15, P. 276]

 (OVER 100,000 PEASANTS DIED. DO I ACCUSE FALSELY? - GLF)

 HE WROTE: “IT WAS I, MARTIN LUTHER, WHO SLEW ALL THE PEASANTS IN THE INSURRECTION, FOR I COMMANDED THEM TO BE SLAUGHTERED. ALL THEIR BLOOD IS UPON MY SHOULDERS. BUT I CAST IT ON OUR LORD GOD WHO COMMANDED ME TO SPEAK IN THIS WAY.” [MARTIN LUTHER, WERKE, ERLANGEN EDITION, VOL. 59, P. 284]

 SO LUTHER SOUGHT THE DEATH OF THOSE OPPOSING INFANT BAPTISM AND FAVORED BELIEVERS’ IMMERSION. IN 1529, THE DIET OF SPEIRS ALL ANABAPTISTS WERE CONDEMNED TO DEATH. MR. HALLEY POINTS OUT 400 SPECIAL POLICE WERE HIRED TO HUNT DOWN THOSE BELIEVERS AND EXECUTE THEM ON THE SPOT. THOUSANDS WERE BURNED ACROSS EUROPE FOR THEIR FAITH. SO THE LUTHERANS KILLED MANY OF THE IMMERSED BELIEVERS.

 URBANUS RHEGIUS WAS A LUTHERAN WHO WROTE A BOOK IN 1528 SHOWING A RIVER RUNNING INTO THE OCEAN OF WATER THAT WAS ON FIRE. THIS WAS THE VIEW OF SWITZERLAND AND GERMANY THAT IMMERSION LED TO HELL.

 BANISHMENT, DEATH, BURNINGS, HANGINGS, TORTURING, BRANDING, AND IMPRISONMENT WAS THEIR FATE.

 LIKEWISE, CALVIN WAS A PERSECUTOR AND A MURDERER. “SO ENTIRELY WAS HE IN FAVOUR OF PERSECUTING MEASURES, THAT HE WROTE A TREATISE IN DEFENCE OF THEM, MAINTAINING THE LAWFULNESS OF PUTTING HERETICS TO DEATH; AND HE REDUCED THESE RIGID THEORIES TO PRACTICE, IN HIS CONDUCT TOWARDS CASTELLIO, JEROM BOLSEE, AND SERVETUS, WHOSE FATES ARE TOO GENERALLY KNOWN TO REQUIRE BEING HERE REPEATED. AT THE COUNCIL OF GENEVA, 1632, NICHOLAS ANTHOINE WAS CONDEMNED TO BE FIRST HANGED AND THEN BURNED FOR OPPOSING THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY...” (J.J. STOCKDALE, THE HISTORY OF THE INQUISITIONS, 1810, P. XXVIII). MARTIN LUTHER JOHN CALVIN JULY 2015 THE GOSPEL UNASHAMED 3 IN THE DAYS OF KING EDWARD VI OF ENGLAND, CALVIN WROTE A LETTER TO LORD PROTECTOR SOMERSET AND URGED HIM TO PUT ANABAPTISTS TO DEATH: “THESE ALTOGETHER DESERVE TO BE WELL PUNISHED BY THE SWORD, SEEING THAT THEY DO CONSPIRE AGAINST GOD, WHO HAD SET HIM IN HIS ROYAL SEAT” (JOHN CHRISTIAN, A HISTORY OF THE BAPTISTS, VOL. 1, CHAP. 15).

 HISTORIAN JOHN CHRISTIAN OBSERVES THAT CALVIN “WAS RESPONSIBLE IN A LARGE MEASURE FOR THE DEMON OF HATE AND FIERCE HOSTILITY WHICH THE BAPTISTS OF ENGLAND HAD TO ENCOUNTER.”

 IN OCTOBER 1563, CALVIN HAD SERVETUS KILLED, BURNED AT THE STAKE FOR DISAGREEING ON THE TRINITY. IT WAS APPROVED BY BOTH MELANCHTHON OF GERMANY AND BULLINGER OF GENEVA AND OTHER LEADING REFORMERS. SOME OF THE WORST PERSECUTIONS WERE DONE BY THE CALVINISTS AGAINST THE ARMINIANS.

 SOME WERE BEHEADED, IMPRISONED, OR BANISHED. LIKEWISE, THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND UNDER KING HENRY VIII, AS WELL AS KING EDWARD VI AND KING JAMES, PERSECUTED IMMERSIONISTS. THEY ORGANIZED BURNINGS. THESE INCLUDED BOTH MEN AND WOMEN. MANY OF THEIR NAMES ARE RECORDED IN HISTORY BUT ALL IN GOD’S BOOK OF MARTYRS. HANGINGS WERE COMMON AS WELL PERSECUTIONS AND IMPRISONMENTS WHICH CONTINUED OVER SEVERAL CENTURIES.

 WHY DO I PRINT THIS? IT SHOWS THAT IT IS NOT ONLY THE MUSLIMS AND CATHOLICS THAT KILL THEIR OPPONENTS. THE REFORMERS ALSO PERSECUTED THOSE WHO INSISTED ON IMMERSION AND OTHER BIBLE TRUTHS. THE VERY FOUNDERS OF PROTESTANTISM WERE ALSO BUTCHERS FILLED WITH MURDEROUS PRACTICES ON THOSE WHO DISAGREED WITH THEIR DOCTRINES.

 THE LEGACY OF ZWINGLI TODAY - HE WAS THE ONE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING BAPTISM A WORK AND ESTABLISH THE “FAITH ONLY” DOCTRINE WE CONTEND WITH TO THIS DAY.

 AS FOR JOHN CALVIN, THE FOUNDER OF CALVINISM, PREDESTINATION IS STILL TAUGHT IN MANY MAINLINE CHURCHES AND WAS THE CAUSE OF THE DEATH OF MANY BELIEVERS IN CHRIST. YET HE DID NOT PREDESTINATE THE MURDERS.

 MARTIN LUTHER BY HIS OWN MOUTH CAUSED THE DEATHS OF MANY IN GERMANY AND PRUSSIA. HIS HATRED AND PERSECUTION OF JEWS IS ALSO RENOWNED. THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND LIKEWISE TOOK THEIR TOLL ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.

 IRONICALLY, THESE MEN HAD BEEN GREATLY PERSECUTED BY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. HOWEVER, WHERE THEY ESTABLISHED THEMSELVES ELSEWHERE IN SWITZERLAND, GERMANY, ENGLAND, ETC., THEY MOTIVATED OTHER COUNTRIES TO PROSECUTE AND PERSECUTE. THE PERSECUTED BECAME THE PERSECUTORS. ROMANS 11:16 SAYS, “IF THE ROOT IS HOLY, SO ARE THE BRANCHES.” IS NOT THE OPPOSITE TRUE? “IF THE ROOT IS UNHOLY, CAN THE BRANCHES BE HOLY?”

 ISN’T IT STRANGE AND IRONIC THAT THE ADHERENTS TO THESE MEN’S HERITAGE NOW ARE SAYING THAT THE MODE, PURPOSE, AND CANDIDATES FOR BAPTISM IS SIMPLY IMMATERIAL? THE ROTTING CORPSES OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS WHOM THEIR ANCESTORS TORTURED AND SLEW OVER THESE QUESTIONS GAVE THEIR LIVES FOR BELIEVERS’ IMMERSION. CHRIST NEVER INTENDED HIS KINGDOM TO BE SPREAD BY FORCE. THOSE WHO DO SO PROVE THEY ARE NONE OF HIS. IT WAS AT THE PRICE OF THE MARTYRS’ BLOOD THAT WE HAVE THE FREEDOM TODAY TO PREACH BELIEVERS BAPTISM. TRULY MANY OF OUR OWN BRETHREN LACK THE COURAGE IN THIS FREE SOCIETY TO PREACH THE NECESSITY OF BELIEVER’S BAPTISM.

 TODAY, IF WE TEACH WHAT THE RESTORATION FATHERS TAUGHT IN REJECTING THE REFORMER’S TEACHINGS, BOTH WOULD BE COUNTED WORTHY OF MARTYRDOM BY THE FOUNDING REFORMERS. THE TOLERANCE MANY BROTHERS SHOW TOWARD THE DOCTRINE OF THE FOUNDING REFORMERS TO ME IS ASTOUNDING. TO TEACH THE FAITH-ONLY DOCTRINE OF ZWINGLI, THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION OF CALVIN, AND THE NON-NECESSITY OF IMMERSION OF LUTHER AS PRACTICED NOW BY MANY IN THE CHURCH OF CHRIST, DENIES NOT ONLY THE TEACHING OF JESUS CHRIST BUT IS A REJECTION OF OUR HERITAGE. IT CHEAPENS AND TRAMPLES THE BLOOD OF CHRIST AND THE BLOOD OF THE MARTYRS. IT MAKES THE MARTYRS RADICAL LEGALISTS WHO SIMPLY DIED ON THE WRONG HILL.

 (This article was collected from many sources. We especially are thankful for the writings of David Cloud.)

Take Comfort by B. Johnson

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Johnson/Edna/Elizabeth/1939/takecomfort.html

Take Comfort

For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory (2 Corinthians 4:17).

One brother may say, "Light affliction! You mean that suffering at the hands of my co-workers because I am a Christian, is light affliction? They reject me, slander and mock me day after day. How can I keep from worrying about these things?"

A young Christian teen may say, "Ever since I became a member of the church, my school friends have left me. They will not invite me to go with them anywhere because they know I will not participate in the things they do. That is hard to endure when we were so close before. I worry about losing my friends."

The heart of a young mother whose husband has not embraced the truth may be torn because her husband is trying to undermine the teaching she is giving the children. She may be the object of mockery or rejection by her relatives and in-laws or by her own children. How can she endure and focus on the eternal things when her earthly trials are so traumatic day after day? How can she keep from worrying?

The Apostle Paul was the one speaking in 2 Corinthians 4:17 and the trials which he endured, to most of us today, would have seemed to be anything but light. These trials consisted of want (maybe even near starvation), danger, contempt, stoning, toil, weariness, and the scorn of the world. He was constantly exposed to the threat of death by land and by sea (2 Cor. 4:7-10; 2 Cor. 11:23-27). Yet these trials, even though they continued many years, were spoken of as light when compared with that eternal glory which awaited him. He dealt with them as they came and did not worry or wavier in his faith. Trials had followed him ever since he began to preach the Gospel, and he expected that they would follow him to the end of life (Acts 20:23). Yet, all this was a momentary trifle compared with the eternal glory before him.

We also need to focus on the eternal glory that awaits us rather than the temporary burdens so that we can win the battle against Satan. If we allow ourselves to worry and fret about the temporary, those things will overshadow the eternal. We cannot gain the victory that way.

Beth Johnson

 

Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

Family by Gary Rose

Recently, we started watching “The Waltons” again. Yesterday, I said to my wife, Linda: “Why don’t they make shows like this anymore”? She didn’t have and answer and neither do I. I assume that the TV is probably a reflection of society and families like the Walton’s are not as common as they were in the 1940’s. But, they do exist and they can be found – in the church. But, what is a family anyway? Jesus said…

Matthew 12 ( World English Bible )

46 While he was yet speaking to the multitudes, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, seeking to speak to him.

47 One said to him, “Behold, your mother and your brothers stand outside, seeking to speak to you.”

48 But he answered him who spoke to him, "“Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?”"

49 He stretched out his hand towards his disciples, and said, "“Behold, my mother and my brothers! "

50 "For whoever does the will of my Father who is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother.”"

I go to church to be with my spiritual family, Christians. They are what they are; from the very, very religious to the person just taking up space in the pew, but everyone there does care about one another. Feeling a little envious yet? You don’t have to be- just stop by some Sunday. We’ll leave the light on for you!

"THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" Gaining Mastery Over Mammon (6:19-24) by Mark Copeland

"THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW"

                 Gaining Mastery Over Mammon (6:19-24)

INTRODUCTION

1. In writing to Timothy, Paul described the danger of seeking to be rich...
   a. The desire to be rich is filled with temptations which have
      destroyed many - 1Ti 6:9
   b. The love of money is a root of all kinds of evil which have led
      many astray - 1Ti 6:10

2. Jesus also described the difficulty of the rich entering the kingdom
   of heaven...
   a. When the rich young ruler asked concerning eternal life - Mt 19:16-22
   b. Jesus said it was difficult, but not impossible - Mt 19:23-26

3. In Mt 6:19-24, Jesus taught how it was possible...
   a. For the rich person to have "treasure in heaven"
   b. For us to overcome "mammon", which can easily enslave us

4. According to Easton's Bible Dictionary, "mammon" is...
   a. A Chaldee or Syriac word meaning "wealth" or "riches" - Lk 16:9-11
   b. By personification, the god of riches - Mt 6:24

5. Thus if not careful, wealth and riches can become our "god"...
   a. Paul called a covetous person an idolater - Ep 5:5
   b. He told the Colossians to put to death "covetousness, which is
      idolatry" - Col 3:5

[To prevent Mammon from become our "god", let's examine the teachings
of our Lord as found in His sermon on the mount.  Beginning with Mt 6:
19, we find the first of three keys to "Gaining Mastery Over Mammon"...]

I. LAY UP TREASURE IN HEAVEN (19-21)

   A. WHY IN HEAVEN, AND NOT ON EARTH...
      1. On earth:
         a. Moth and rust destroy (material things are perishable)
         b. Thieves break in and steal (material things are subject to theft)
      2. In heaven:
         a. Neither moth nor rust destroys (our treasures are imperishable - 1Pe 1:3-4)
         b. Thieves do not break in and steal (our treasures are
            securely guarded - 1Pe 3:4-5)

   B. WHERE YOUR TREASURE IS, THERE YOUR "HEART" (AFFECTIONS, HOPE,
      DREAMS) WILL BE ALSO...
      1. If your treasure is on earth, your heart will experience much disappointment
         a. As things for which you have affection decay or are one day
            destroyed by fire
         b. As things in which you find your primary joy are suddenly
            gone through things like theft
      2. But if your treasure is in heaven, your heart will not suffer
         great disappointments
         a. For your treasure is "incorruptible, undefiled, and does not fade away"
         b. Nothing can take your treasure away from you, for it is
            1) "reserved in heaven for you"
            2) "kept by the power of God through faith"
      3. With treasures laid up in heaven, whatever happens on earth
         will not devastate you!
         - cf. the Hebrew Christians in He 10:32-34
      4. When these words of Jesus are taken to heart and applied, how
         true His words in Mt 7:24-27 will be!
         a. The "storms" of life will not overwhelm us
         b. Because we've built our foundation upon the words of Jesus
            found in our text!

   C. HOW CAN WE LAY UP TREASURE IN HEAVEN?
      1. First, by becoming children of God...
         a. Thereby becoming "joint-heirs with Christ" - Ro 8:16-17
         b. And the recipients of "every spiritual blessing" in heavenly places - Ep 1:3
      2. Then, by using material wealth we may have to bless those around us...
         a. As Jesus instructed the rich young ruler - Mt 19:21
         b. As He instructed His disciples, in order to have "a
            treasure in the heavens that does not fail" - Lk 12:33-34
         c. As Paul wrote Timothy to charge those rich in this present
            age, that they may be "storing up for themselves a good
            foundation for the time to come, that they may lay hold on
            eternal life" - 1Ti 6:17-19

[Through such generosity and liberality, then, we are well on the way
to "Gaining Mastery Over Mammon."  At the same time, we need to make
sure that we observe the second key...]

II. KEEP YOUR EYE GOOD (22-23)

   A. IN THE METAPHOR USED BY JESUS...
      1. The "body" likely represents the "soul" or "inner man"
      2. The "eye" likely represents the "gaze of the soul" or the "heart of man"
      3. The word "good" in Greek means "simple, single, uncomplicated"
      4. The word "bad" in Greek means "wicked, evil"
      5. And in the Scriptures, the expression "evil eye" is used to
         mean "envious, covetous" - cf. Pr 23:6; Mt 20:15; Mk 7:22

   B. AN EXPLANATION BASED UPON THESE DEFINITIONS...
      1. If the heart or gaze of the soul be "good" ("single" in its
         love of God and the things of God)...
         a. Then one is filled with "light"
         b. In other words, goodness, righteousness, and truth - cf.Ep 5:8-10
      2. But if the heart or gaze of the soul be "evil" (full of envy, covetousness)...
         a. Then one's soul is filled with "darkness"
         b. The opposite of light:  selfishness, wickedness, and falsehood!

   C. THUS THE NEED FOR THE WARNING...
      1. To guard what goes in your eye
         a. I.e., what you allow your eyes to dwell upon
         b. Remember, there is such a thing as "the lusts of the eyes"
            (i.e., materialism)
      2. To be rich toward God, free from covetousness - Lk 12:13-21
         a. Note Jesus' warning - Lk 12:15
         b. Also His conclusion - Lk 12:21

[The third and last key to "Gaining Mastery Over Mammon" is most
crucial, and will make it impossible for one to serve Mammon...]

III. MAKE GOD YOUR MASTER (24)

   A. NO ONE CAN SERVE TWO MASTERS...
      1. A "master" by definition demands "total loyalty", and we are
         unable to please two masters at the same time
      2. Such is certainly true with God - cf. Exo 34:14
      3. Mammon is evidently no different

   B. WE HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN GOD AND MAMMON...
      1. When wealth is coveted, and becomes the priority in our lives,
         it becomes a "god" - cf. Ep 5:5; Col 3:5
      2. So the choice becomes one as to whether we shall worship the
         One True God, or be "idolaters" following after a false god!

   C. CHOOSE TO SERVE GOD...
      1. As Jesus would later say, "Seek first the kingdom of God and
         His righteousness" - Mt 6:33
      2. Do this, and God becomes our Master
      3. Since we can't serve two masters, this effectively eliminates
         Mammon from being our "god"!

CONCLUSION

1. These are the three keys to "Gaining Mastery Over Mammon"...
   a. Lay up treasure in heaven (by helping others)
   b. Keep your eye good (guard what you allow to influence your inner man)
   c. Make God your Master (and you will not be able to serve another Master)

2. Why seek to gain mastery over mammon and serve God instead?
   a. Because Mammon...
      1) Is susceptible to decay and theft
      2) Will make us blind, selfish creatures
   b. Whereas with God...
      1) Our treasures are secure
      2) We will be kind, righteous people

3. By gaining mastery over Mammon we will also avoid...
   a. Falling into a temptation and a snare
   b. Falling into many foolish and harmful lusts
   c. Straying from the faith because of greediness
   d. Piercing ourselves with many sorrows - cf. 1Ti 6:9-10

But most importantly, Christians will be "storing up for themselves a
good foundation for the time to come", and "lay hold on eternal life"
(1Ti 6:17-19).  Isn't that what we really want?

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

Is the Book of Mormon From God? [Part II] by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=2781

Is the Book of Mormon From God? [Part II]

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is the second installment in a two-part critique of The Book of Mormon. Part I appeared in the September issue. Part 2 follows below, and continues, without introductory comments, where the first article ended. It is certainly not the intention either of Apologetics Press or the author of this article to insult, demean, or misrepresent Mormons. Nevertheless, multiplied thousands of individuals, who have embraced Mormon doctrine, deserve the opportunity to assess their beliefs in light of the Bible and in anticipation of eternity. We sincerely pray that no reader will take personal affront at what follows, but will simply weigh the evidence and arrive at the truth.]

Outlandish Doctrines

Can Humans Become Gods?

One of the more eye-opening beliefs of Mormonism is the polytheistic notion that humans can become gods. Standard Mormon theology maintains that even God (the Father) and Jesus Christ were initially human. They were preceded by other humans who themselves progressed to the status of gods.

Of course, this doctrine was not presented initially by Joseph Smith, but was developed after the production of The Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon actually contradicts later Mormon revelation, in that it affirmed in 1830 the biblical doctrine of the oneness of God in three persons, i.e., the historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Observe the conversation between Ammon and King Lamoni:

And then Ammon said: “Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit?” And he said, “Yea.” And Ammon said: “This is God.” And Ammon said unto him again: “Believest thou that this Great Spirit, who is God, created all things which are in heaven and in the earth?” And he said: “Yea, I believe that he created all things which are in the earth; but I do not know the heavens.” And Ammon said unto him: “The heavens is a place where God dwells and all his holy angels.... I am called by his Holy Spirit to teach these things unto this people” (Alma 18:26-30).

Nephi declared: “And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end” (2 Nephi 31:21, emp. added). Amulek contended with the diabolical Zeezrom: “And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living God? And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God. Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he answered, No” (Alma 11:26-29,
emp. added).

The Book of Mormon also affirmed that Jesus was God in the flesh:

And now Abinadi said unto them: “I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—the Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth” (Mosiah 15:1-4, emp. added).

Even the “three witnesses” to The Book of Mormon, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris, affirmed monotheism and the oneness of God: “And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God” (“The Testimony...,” 1981, emp. added). Joseph Smith affirmed the same thing in the Articles of Faith: “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost” (Pearl of..., 1981, p. 60).

These teachings certainly are in harmony with the Bible. The Bible repeatedly and frequently affirms the doctrine of monotheism and the unity of God: Deuteronomy 4:35,39; 6:4; Isaiah 43:10-11; 44:6,8; 45:5; 46:9; Mark 12:29; Romans 3:30; 1 Corinthians 8:4,6; 1 Timothy 2:5. These and many other passages indicate “there is but one infinite Spirit Being, and that within that one Spirit essence there are three personal distinctions, each of which may be, and is, called God” (Lanier, 1974, p. 46). There is only one divine essence (ousia) or nature (phusis)—a solidaric unity—one divine substance in (not and) three persons (prosopa or persona), with each “person” being the subsistence (hupostaseis) of the divine Essence [NOTE: For discussions of the biblical concept of Trinity and its treatment in church history, see Archer, 1982, pp. 357-361; Bickersteth, n.d.; Boles, 1942, pp. 19ff.; Chadwick, 1967, pp. 84ff.; Schaff, 1910, 3:670ff.; Walker, 1970, pp. 106ff.; Warfield, 1939a, 5:3012-3022].

But by 1844, Joseph Smith had begun to advocate a very different understanding of deity—in direct contradiction to The Book of Mormon. He began to promulgate the idea that God had, in fact, previously been a man Himself Who had become exalted, and that all men were capable of the same progression (see Tanner, 1972, p. 163). This shift was expressed formally in the Pearl of Great Price. In the Book of Moses, God is spoken of in the singular throughout. For example: “I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God; by mine Only Begotten I created these things; yea, in the beginning I created the heaven and the earth upon which thou standest” (2:1). In stark contrast, however, in the Book of Abraham, in a section discussing the same creation event, God is spoken of as “Gods.”
For example:

And then the Lord said: “Let us go down.” And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth. ...And the Gods called the light Day, and the darkness they called Night. ...And the Gods watched those things which they had ordered until they obeyed. ...And the Gods took counsel among themselves and said: Let us go down and form man in our image, after our likeness. ...And the Gods planted a garden, eastward in Eden, and there they put the man, whose spirit they had put into the body which they had formed (4:1,5,18; 5:8, emp. added).

Anyone who is familiar with the King James Version cannot help but be struck with the fact that the author of the Book of Abraham had before him a copy of a KJV and merely paraphrased the text. It is equally apparent that the author “had an axe to grind” in adjusting the text to foist upon the reader the notion of multiple “gods.” In fact, in the 31 verses of chapter four, the term “Gods” is used 32 times. It is used 16 times in chapter 5. Polytheism now so thoroughly permeates Mormonism that one Mormon apostle asserted that humans are the offspring of the union between an Eternal Father and an Eternal Mother (McConkie, 1979, p. 516)!

“Let Us make man”

Separate and apart from the issue of the inspiration of The Book of Mormon, the question must be asked: Does the Bible give credence to the notion of multiple gods? Certainly not! However, various verses have been marshaled in an effort to defend the Mormon viewpoint. For example, on the sixth day of Creation, God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness” (Genesis 1:26). It is alleged by Mormons that the use of the plural in this verse implies a multiplicity of “gods.” However, an examination of the context reveals that the doctrine of the Trinity is being conveyed (see Leupold, 1942, 1:86ff.).

The Holy Spirit was active at the Creation, “hovering over the face of the waters” (1:2). “Hovering” refers to attentive participation (cf. Deuteronomy 32:11). Elsewhere, the Bible makes clear that Jesus also was present at the Creation, in active participation with Deity’s creative activity (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2; 2:10). Hence, when God spoke of “Us,” He was referring to Himself and the other two members of the divine Essence [NOTE: Compare “Godhead” (theotes) in Colossians 2:9, “divine” nature (theios) in Acts 17:29 and 2 Peter 1:3-4, and “divinity” (theioteis) in Romans 1:20. The first term (theotes) differs from the third term (theioteis) “as essence differs from quality or attribute” (Thayer, 1901, p. 288; cf. Vine, 1966, pp. 328-329; Warfield, 1939b, 2:1268-1270)]. Some (e.g., Archer, 1982, p. 74) have suggested that God was including the angels in the “us,” since “sons of God” sometimes can refer to the angels (e.g., Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; cf. Psalms 29:1; 89:6), and “sons of God” can be shortened to “God” while still referring to angels (e.g., compare Psalm 97:7 with Hebrews 1:6, and Psalm 8:5 with Hebrews 2:7,9). In either case, the fact remains that the Bible presents a consistent picture that there is only one God, and that this divine essence includes three—and only three—persons.

“Ye shall be as gods”

Another verse that has been brought forward to substantiate Mormon polytheism is the comment made on the occasion of Adam and Eve being tempted to eat the forbidden fruit: “For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5—NKJV). The King James Version says, “ye shall be as gods.” Four points of clarification are in order on this verse. In the first place, Satan made this statement—not God. Satan’s declarations are never to be trusted, since he is “a liar and the father of it” (John 8:44).

In the second place, the uncertainty conveyed by the various English translations in their differing treatment of the verse (i.e., whether “God” or “gods”) is the result of the underlying Hebrew term elohim. This word is not to be confused with Yahweh, the formal name for God throughout the Old Testament. Elohim is a generic term used some 2,570 times in Scripture, and generally refers to the one true God, but also is used to refer to pagan gods, and even can refer to human judges or rulers (e.g., Exodus 4:16; 7:1; 21:6; 22:9,28) and, as noted previously, to angels (Harris, et al., 1980, 1:44-45; Miller, 2008, pp. 114-115). Though the word is plural in form, it is used in both the plural and singular sense [cf. “face” (panim—Genesis 50:1; Exodus 34:35) and “image” (teraphim—1 Samuel 19:13)]. English shares a similar phenomenon with its plural nouns like “deer,” “seed,” “sheep,” and “moose.” The same form is used, whether referring to one or many. Hebrew, like most other languages, matched the number (whether singular or plural) of verbs and adjectives with the noun. In the case of elohim, with only rare exception, the verbs and adjectives used with it are either singular or plural in conformity with the intended meaning (Ringgren, 1974, p. 272). Fretheim noted that its use in the Old Testament for Israel’s God is “always with singular verbs” (1997, 1:405; cf. Archer, 1982, p. 74).

Some Hebrew scholars maintain that the plural form used to designate the one true God is the pluralis majestatis or excellentiae (the plural of majesty), or the plural of intensification, absolutization, or exclusivity (e.g., Fretheim, 1:405; Gesenius, 1847, p. 49; Harris, et al., p. 44; Mack, 1939, 2:1265; Reeve, 1939, 2:1270), although others question this usage (e.g., Grudem, 1994, p. 227; Jenni and Westermann, 1997, p. 116). In the case at hand, Satan was tempting Eve with the prospect of being like God—Whom she knew, and from Whom she (or at least her husband) had received previous communication (Genesis 2:16-17; 3:3). She knew nothing of other “gods”—pagan or otherwise. Since the term elohim occurs 58 times in the first three chapters of Genesis and is consistently rendered “God,” and since Satan himself used the term earlier in the same verse, as well as four verses earlier (vs. 1), to refer to the one God, no contextual, grammatical, or lexical reason exists for rendering it “gods” in verse five. In fact, most of the major English translations properly render it “God” (e.g., NKJV, ASV, NASB, NIV, RSV). [NOTE: See also the discussion in Clarke, n.d., 1:50, who noted that the ancient Syriac version rendered the term correctly].

 

 

Third, elohim in this verse has an attached prefix (Biblia Hebraica, 1967/77, p. 4)—what Hebrew scholars call an “inseparable preposition” (Weingreen, 1959, p. 26). In this case, the prepositional prefix is the 11th letter of the Hebrew alphabet, the kaph, and means “like” or “as.” Satan was not saying that Eve would become God or a god; He was saying she would become like God.

This realization brings us to a fourth point: the context stipulates in what way Eve would become like God. In the very verse under consideration, an explanatory phrase clarifies what Satan meant: “You will be like God, knowing good and evil” (emp. added). This meaning is evident from subsequent references in the same chapter. When they disobeyed God and ate the forbidden fruit, “the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew...” (vs. 7, emp. added). God commented: “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil” (vs. 22, emp. added). In other words, Adam and Eve became like God in the sense that they now were privy to a greater breadth of awareness, understanding, and insight:

They now had a sufficient discovery of their sin and folly in disobeying the command of God; they could discern between good and evil; and what was the consequence? Confusion and shame were engendered, because innocence was lost and guilt contracted (Clarke, p. 51).

As Keil and Delitzsch summarized: “By eating the fruit, man did obtain the knowledge of good and evil, and in this respect became like God” (1976, 1:95, emp. added).

“God of gods”

A third attempt to substantiate the Mormon doctrine of plural gods is the use of various verses from the Bible that speak of God being a “God of gods.” For example, on the occasion of the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt, the “Song of Moses” declared: “Who is like You, O Lord, among the gods?” (Exodus 15:11, emp. added). Forty years later, in his stirring challenge to the Israelites to be firm in their future commitment to God, Moses reminded them: “For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome” (Deuteronomy 10:17, emp. added). During the days of Joshua, some of the Israelites exclaimed: “The Lord God of gods, the Lord God of gods, He knows” (Joshua 22:22, emp. added). These verses, and many more in the Bible, speak of “gods” in such a way that a cursory reading might leave one with the impression that the Bible teaches that “gods” actually existed. However, one cannot really study the Bible and come away with that conclusion. The Bible presents a thoroughgoing monotheistic view of reality. It repeatedly conveys the fact that “gods” are merely the figment of human imagination, invented by humans to provide themselves with exemption from following the one true God by living up to the higher standard of deity. Humans throughout history have conjured up their own imaginary gods to justify freedom from restriction and to excuse relaxed moral behavior.

Consequently, all verses in the Bible that use the term “gods” to refer to deity (with the exception of the one God) are referring to nonexistent, imaginary deities that humans have invented. When God gave the Ten Commandments to the Israelites, the very first one said: “You shall have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:3). Liberal higher critics of the Bible (like Wellhausen) have alleged that this dictum advocated only monolatry (exclusive worship of Yahweh) rather than actually denying the existence of other gods. However, distinguished professor of Old Testament languages, Gleason Archer, maintains that “this construction of the words is quite unwarranted” (1974, p. 235). Many additional passages clarify the point. For example, the psalmist declared: “For the Lord is great and greatly to be praised; He is to be feared above all gods” (Psalm 96:4, emp. added). One might get the impression from this verse by itself that the psalmist thought that “gods” actually existed. However, the next verse sets the record straight: “For all the gods of the peoples are idols, but the Lord made the heavens” (vs. 5, emp. added). The Hebrew word for “idols” (elilim) means “of nothing, of nought, empty, vain” (Gesenius, p. 51). Notice carefully the contrast the psalmist was making. The people made their gods; but the one true God made the heavens (i.e., the Universe). The genuineness, reality, and greatness of God are placed in contrast to the people’s fake, nonexistent gods who could not make anything. Archer concluded: “This passage alone...demonstrates conclusively that the mention of ‘gods’ in the plural implied no admission of the actual existence of heathen gods in the first commandment” (1974, p. 236). As God Himself announced: “They have provoked Me to jealousy by what is not God” (Deuteronomy 32:21, emp. added).

The denunciation of the Israelites for conjuring up false gods—pretending that such actually existed, rather than devoting themselves exclusively to the one and only God—reached its zenith in the eloquent preaching pronouncements of the Old Testament prophets. Elijah treated the notion of the existence of gods in addition to the one God with sarcasm and forthright ridicule (1 Kings 18:27-29). The idea of multiple gods would have been laughable, if it were not so spiritually serious (cf. Psalm 115:2-8). The people on that occasion finally got the point, for they shouted: “The Lord, He is God! The Lord, He is God!” (vs. 39).

Likewise, the reality of monotheism was pure, well-defined, and single-minded for Jeremiah. He frequently chastised the people by accusing them of following gods that were, in fact, “not gods” (2:11; 5:7; 16:20). Isaiah was equally adamant and explicit:

You are My witnesses, says the Lord, and My servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, nor shall there be after Me. I, even I, am the Lord, and besides Me there is no savior. I have declared and saved, I have proclaimed, and there was no foreign god among you; therefore you are My witnesses, says the Lord, that I am God. Indeed, before the day was, I am He; and there is no one who can deliver out of My hand; I work, and who will reverse it? (43:10-13, emp. added; cf. 37: 19; 40:18-20; 41; 44:8-24).

Over and over, Isaiah recorded the exclusivity of the one true God: “I am the Lord, and there is no other; there is no God besides Me” (45:5, emp. added); “There is no other God” (45:14, emp. added); “I am the Lord, and there is no other” (45:18, emp. added).

The New Testament continues the same recognition of the nonexistence of deities beyond the one God Who exists in three persons. Paul reminded the Galatian Christians of their pre-Christian foolish belief in other deities: “But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods” (4:8, emp. added). By definition, the “gods” that people claim actually exist are not gods. In his lengthy discussion of whether Christians were permitted to eat foods that had been sacrificed to pagan deities, Paul clarified succinctly the Bible position on the existence of so-called gods:

Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), yet for us there is only one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live (1 Corinthians 8:4-6, emp. added).

In this passage, Paul declared very forthrightly that idols, and the gods they represent, are, in fact, nonentities. The RSV renders the meaning even more clearly: “We know that an idol has no real existence, and that there is no God but one” (emp. added).

Of course, Paul recognized and acknowledged that humans have worshipped imaginary, nonexistent, “so-called” gods in heaven (like Greek mythology advocated) and on Earth (in the form of idols). He used the figure of speech known as “metonymy of the adjunct,” where “things are spoken of according to appearance, opinions formed respecting them, or the claims made for them” (Bullinger, 1898, p. 597; Dungan, 1888, p. 295; cf. 2 Corinthians 4:4). He spoke of “gods” as if they existed, simply because many people of his day had that opinion. But Paul knew “there is no God but one.” As Allen observed: “The gods (i.e., the so-called divine beings contemplated by the pagans) represented by the images did not exist. ...[T]hey were nothing as far as representing the deities envisioned by the heathen” (1975, p. 98, emp. added; cf. Kelcy, 1967, p. 38; Thomas, 1984, p. 30).

Paul continued his discussion of idols two chapters later, and again affirmed the nonexistence of any deities besides God: “What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything?” (1 Corinthians 10:19). For Paul, it was technically permissible for a Christian to eat food that had previously been used in a pagan ceremony as an offering to a “god.” Why? Because such “gods” did not, and do not, actually exist—except in the mind of the worshipper (cf. 8:7-8)! Thus, the food used in such ceremonies was unaffected. However, the person who really thinks there are “gods,” and who then worships these imaginary “gods,” is, in actuality, worshipping demons (10:20). Paul said there are only two possibilities: “But I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons” (10:20-21). Paul envisioned no class of beings known as “gods.” There is only the one true God, and then there are the demons and forces of Satan (cf. 2 Corinthians 6:15-16). This bifurcation of the spiritual realm (i.e., God versus Satan and his forces) is the consistent portrait presented throughout the Bible. The Bible simply admits no knowledge or possibility of “gods.”

“You are gods”

A final passage that is alleged to support the notion of “gods” is the statement made by Jesus when the Jews wanted to stone Him because He claimed divinity for Himself:

The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.” Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”?’ If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came...do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, “You are blaspheming,” because I said, “I am the Son of God”? (John 10:33-36).

Mormons allege that Jesus here endorsed the notion that men can become “gods.” But, of course, Jesus did no such thing. On this occasion, He appealed to an Old Testament context to deflect the barb of His critics. Psalm 82 is a passage that issued a scathing indictment of the unjust judges who had been assigned the responsibility of executing God’s justice among the people (cf. Deuteronomy 1:16; 19:17-18; Psalm 58). Such a magistrate was “God’s minister” (Romans 13:4) who acted in the place of God, wielding His authority, and who was responsible for mediating God’s help and justice (cf. Exodus 7:1). In this sense, they were “gods” (elohim)—acting as God to men (Barclay, 1956, 2:89). Hebrew parallelism clarifies this sense: “I said, ‘You are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High’” (Psalm 82:6, emp. added). They did not share divinity with God—but merely delegated jurisdiction. They still were mere humans—although invested with divine authority, and permitted to act in God’s behalf.

This point is apparent throughout the Torah, where the term translated “judges” or “ruler” is occasionally elohim (e.g., Exodus 21:6; 22:9,28). Take Moses as an example. Moses was not a “god.” Yet God told Moses that when he went to Egypt to orchestrate the release of the Israelites, he would be “God” to his brother Aaron and to Pharaoh (Exodus 4:16; 7:1). He meant that Moses would supply both his brother and Pharaoh with the words that came from God. Though admittedly a rather rare use of elohim, nevertheless “it shows that the word translated ‘god’ in that place might be applied to man” (Barnes, 1949, p. 294, emp. in orig.). Clarke summarized this point: “Ye are my representatives, and are clothed with my power and authority to dispense judgment and justice, therefore all of them are said to be children of the Most High” (3:479, emp. in orig.). But because they had shirked their awesome responsibility to represent God’s will fairly and accurately, and because they had betrayed the sacred trust bestowed upon them by God Himself, He decreed death upon them (vs. 7). Obviously, they were not “gods,” since God could and would execute them!

Jesus marshaled this Old Testament psalm to thwart His opponents’ attack, while simultaneously reaffirming His deity (which is the central feature of the book of John—20:30-31). He made shrewd use of syllogistic argumentation by reasoning a minori ad majus (see Lenski, 1943, pp. 765-770; cf. Fishbane, 1985, p. 420). “Jesus is here arguing like a rabbi from a lesser position to a greater position, a ‘how much more’ argument very popular among the rabbis” (Pack, 1975, 1:178). In fact, “it is an argument which to a Jewish Rabbi would have been entirely convincing. It was just the kind of argument, an argument founded on a word of scripture, which the Rabbis loved to use and found most unanswerable” (Barclay, 1956, p. 90).

Jesus identified the unjust judges of Israel as persons “to whom the word of God came” (John 10:35). That is, they had been “appointed judges by Divine commission” (Butler, 1961, p. 127)—by “the command of God; his commission to them to do justice” (Barnes, 1949, p. 294, emp. in orig.; cf. Jeremiah 1:2; Ezekiel 1:3; Luke 3:2). McGarvey summarized the ensuing argument of Jesus: “If it was not blasphemy to call those gods who so remotely represented the Deity, how much less did Christ blaspheme in taking unto himself a title to which he had a better right than they, even in the subordinate sense of being a mere messenger” (n.d., p. 487). Charles Erdman observed:

By his defense Jesus does not renounce his claim to deity; but he argues that if the judges, who represented Jehovah in their appointed office, could be called “gods,” in the Hebrew scriptures, it could not be blasphemy for him, who was the final and complete revelation of God, to call himself “the Son of God (1922, pp. 95-96; cf. Morris, 1971, pp. 527-528).

This verse teaches the exact opposite of what Mormons would like for it to teach! It brings into stark contrast the deity—the Godhood—of Christ (and His Father Who “sanctified and sent” Him—vs. 36) with the absence of deity for all others! There are no other “gods” in the sense of deity, i.e., eternality and infinitude in all attributes. Jesus verified this very conclusion by directing the attention of His accusers to the “works” that He performed (vs. 37-38). These “works” (i.e., miraculous signs) proved the divine identity of Jesus to the exclusion of all other alleged deities. Archer concluded: “By no means, then, does our Lord imply here that we are sons of God just as He is—except for a lower level of holiness and virtue. No misunderstanding could be more wrongheaded than that” (1982, p. 374). Indeed, the Mormon notion of a plurality of gods is “wrongheaded,” as is the accompanying claim that humans can become gods.

It is unthinkable that the consistent prohibition of polytheism and idolatry throughout the Bible would or could give way to the completely contrary notion that, as a matter of fact, many gods do exist, and that these gods are merely exalted humans who now rule over their own worlds even as God and Christ rule over theirs. It is likewise outlandish—and contradictory—that humans would be required to worship God and Christ—while being banned from worshipping these other gods. The fact of the matter is that “historic Hebrew is unquestionably and uniformly monotheistic” (Mack, 1939, 2:1265). The same may be said of historic Christianity. To think otherwise is pure pagan hocus-pocus—“a mere creation of the imagination, a mere matter of superstition” (Erdman, 1928, p. 78, emp. added).

CONCLUSION

An honest and humble appraisal of these and many other discrepancies and doctrines should create great concern in the heart of one who believes Mormon documents to be inspired. Many criticisms have been leveled against the Bible over the centuries, yet have been answered decisively (e.g., Lyons, 2003; Lyons, 2005; Archer, 1982; Haley, 1977). If The Book of Mormon were from God, it, too, could be defended and its divine authenticity substantiated. However, the lack of adequate explanations to clarify such problems compels the honest individual to conclude that The Book of Mormon and other Mormon scriptures do not derive their origin from the God of the Bible.

[NOTE: For an extended version of this article, which includes a discussion of the Morman doctrine of baptism for the dead, visit http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240218.]

REFERENCES

Allen, Jimmy (1975), Survey of 1 Corinthians (Searcy, AR: Privately published by author).

Archer, Gleason L. (1974), A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody), revised edition.

Archer, Gleason L. (1982), An Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Barclay, William (1956), The Gospel of John (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press), second edition.

Barnes, Albert (1949 reprint), Notes on the New Testament: Luke and John (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1967/77), (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung).

Bickersteth, Edward (no date), The Trinity (MacDill AFB, FL: MacDonald Publishing).

Boles, H. Leo (1942), The Holy Spirit: His Personality, Nature, Works (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 1971 reprint).

The Book of Mormon (1981 reprint), (Salt Lake City, UT: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).

Bullinger, E.W. (1898), Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1968 reprint).

Butler, Paul (1961), The Gospel of John (Joplin, MO: College Press).

Chadwick, Henry (1967), The Early Church (New York: Penguin Books).

Clarke, Adam (no date), Clarke’s Commentary: Genesis-Deuteronomy (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury).

Dungan, D.R. (1888), Hermeneutics (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).

Erdman, Charles (1922), The Gospel of John (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).

Erdman, Charles (1928), The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).

Fishbane, Michael (1985), Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press).

Fretheim, Terence (1997), “elohim,” in The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, ed. Willem VanGemeren (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Gesenius, William (1847), Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), 1979 reprint.

Grudem, Wayne (1994), Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Harris, R. Laird, Gleason Archer, Jr. and Bruce Waltke, eds. (1980), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago, IL: Moody).

Haley, John (1977 reprint), Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Jenni, Ernst and Claus Westermann (1997), Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament (Peabody, MS: Hendrickson).

Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1976 reprint), Commentary on the Old Testament: The Pentateuch (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Kelcy, Raymond C. (1967), First Corinthians (Austin, TX: Sweet).

Lanier, Roy H., Sr. (1974), The Timeless Trinity for the Ceaseless Centuries (Denver, CO: Roy H. Lanier, Sr.).

Lenski, R.C.H. (1943), The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).

Leupold, Herbert C. (1942), Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1950 reprint).

Lyons, Eric (2003), The Anvil Rings: Volume 1 (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Lyons, Eric (2005), The Anvil Rings: Volume 2 (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Mack, Edward (1939), “Names of God,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974 reprint).

McConkie, Bruce (1979), Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft).

McGarvey, J.W. (n.d.), The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).

Miller, Dave (2008), “Promised Messiah” in Behold the Lamb, ed. David Lipe (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman University).

Morris, Leon (1971), The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Pack, Frank (1975), The Gospel According to John (Austin, TX: Sweet).

Pearl of Great Price (1981 reprint), (Salt Lake City, UT: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).

Reeve, J.J. (1939), “Gods,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 1974 reprint.

Ringgren, Helmer (1974), “elohim,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Schaff, Philip (1910), History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979 reprint).

Tanner, Jerald and Sandra (1972), Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? (Salt Lake City, UT: Modern Microfilm).

“The Testimony of Three Witnesses” (1981 reprint), Introduction to the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, UT: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).

Thayer, Joseph H. (1901), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1977 reprint).

Thomas, J.D. (1984), The Message of the New Testament: First Corinthians (Abilene, TX: Biblical Research Press).

Vine, W.E. (1966 reprint), An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell).

Walker, Williston (1970), A History of the Christian Church (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons).

Warfield, Benjamin (1939a), “Trinity,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974 reprint).

Warfield, Benjamin (1939b), “Godhead,” International Standard Bible Ency-clopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974 reprint).

Weingreen, J. (1959), A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew (Oxford: Oxford University Press), second edition.

Is the Book of Mormon From God? [Part I] by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=2787

Is the Book of Mormon From God? [Part I]

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

[EDITORS’ NOTE: This article is the first installment in a two-part critique of The Book of Mormon. It is certainly not the intention, either of Apologetics Press or the author of this article, to insult, demean, or misrepresent Mormons. Nevertheless, multiplied thousands of individuals, who have embraced Mormon doctrine, deserve the opportunity to assess their beliefs in light of the Bible and in anticipation of eternity. We sincerely pray that no reader will take personal affront at what follows, but will simply weigh the evidence and seek the truth.]

How may a person distinguish between truth and error? Can a person know which religion, if any, is right? Must a person rely on subjective inner inclinations and feelings? Or is religious truth ascertainable and knowable based on objective assessment? Some religions (e.g., Buddhism and Hinduism) base their credibility on some mystical or transcendental experience. Even some “Christian” groups claim that their credibility and authenticity may be established on the basis of the Holy Spirit Whom, they say, gives them their assurance. But when the Bible is examined, no such role is assigned to the Holy Spirit. Mystical religions have always existed, and have insisted that they are the recipients of leading and guidance from superior forces that are “better felt than told.” The God of the Bible, on the other hand, always offered evidence—proof—of the divine origin of the message before He expected people to believe (e.g., John 10:37-38; 20:30-31; Deuteronomy 18:21-22).

The nature of truth is such that it does not depend upon subjective human experience for its veracity. Rather, God created human beings with minds that were designed to function rationally—part of what it means to be created “in the image of God” (Genesis 1:27; cf. Lyons and Thompson, 2002). We humans have the capability, if we maintain an honest heart free from bias (Luke 8:15), to consider and weigh evidence, and to draw correct conclusions (Acts 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1). As Jesus said, “You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). The truthfulness of religious claims is verifiable on the basis of evidence and rational thought. Humans have the capacity, capability, and responsibility to reason logically, and distinguish between truth and falsehood. [NOTE: Allusions to The Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price are taken from a 1981 reprint that contains all three documents.]

FALLACIES OF MORMON SCRIPTURE

The nature of truth is such that it does not contradict itself. After literally centuries of scrutiny by hostile skeptics and unbelieving critics, the Bible has been found to be completely consistent with the nature of truth, logic, and the laws of thought (Lyons, 2005). On the other hand, uninspired documents cannot stand up to such scrutiny. The Book of Mormon is one such document. It lacks the marks of inspiration that characterize the Bible. In an official publication of the LDS (Latter-day Saints), 31 conditions are identified as necessary in order to produce an inspired book. Condition #9 says, “You must not make any absurd, impossible, or contradictory statements” (“The Challenge...,” 1990, p. 1). This affirmation is a self-evident truth. Yet, The Book of Mormon is guilty of violating these very criteria.

Fallible, Uninspired Reliance on the KJV

In the first place, much of the King James Version of the Bible has been reproduced verbatim in The Book of Mormon—estimated to be from 17,000 to 27,000 words (Tanner, 1972, p. 81; cf. Bales, 1958, p. 157). For example, Mosiah 14 is a reproduction of Isaiah 53. Third Nephi 13:1-23 is simply Matthew 6:1-23. Moroni 7:45 is copied from 1 Corinthians 13:4-7. Moroni 7:48 is 1 John 3:2. Moroni 10:8-17 is taken from 1 Corinthians 12:4-11. Alma 5:52 is Matthew 3:10. Second Nephi 14:1-3 is Isaiah 4:1-3. The author of The Book of Mormon obviously had before him a copy of the King James Bible, and simply copied many sections directly from it (though it is claimed that The Book of Mormon was actually written from 600 to 421 B.C. [see “A Brief Explanation...,” 1981]). But this is only half of the problem on this point. The KJV is an uninspired translation of available Hebrew and Greek manuscripts into the English language of the late 16th and early 17th century, completed in 1611. But God gave the Old Testament to the Israelites in their native language (Hebrew), and He gave the New Testament in the first century in the common language of that day (Koine Greek). Question: why in the world would God give His Word to Joseph Smith in 19th century America (1830), not in American English, but in the British language of 17th century England? The obvious answer to the question is that God would not do so. This absurdity is inconsistent with the nature of God.

The reproduction of so much of the KJV in The Book of Mormon raises four additional concerns. First, Mormons frequently attempt to establish the superiority of The Book of Mormon over the Bible by insisting that the Bible has been corrupted through the centuries in the process of translation (a contention similar to Islam’s defense of the Quran—see Miller, 2005). But if the Bible has been so adversely affected, why does The Book of Mormon quote so much of the King James Version? To be consistent, those who hold this viewpoint must admit that at least those portions of the Bible are to be considered accurate.

Second, all textual critics (those who study the original manuscript evidence that attests to the text of the New Testament) know that textual variants exist in the extant manuscript evidence. The vast majority of these discordant readings are resolved when all of the textual evidence is considered (e.g., Metzger, 1968, p. 185). If The Book of Mormon were inspired, not only would it refrain from incorporating the King James Version within its pages, it also would not include in those sections the manuscript errors that have crept into the text. Here was the perfect opportunity in 1830 for God to clarify the variants that had accumulated during the previous 200 years (as well as the 1,500 years prior to the KJV). Instead, The Book of Mormon perpetuated the mistakes.

For example, several textual variants occur in Matthew 6—a chapter that was reproduced in 3 Nephi 13. In Matthew 6:4, the Textus Receptus (the Greek text upon which the KJV was based) contained the words “himself” and “openly.” These insertions were perpetuated by the author of The Book of Mormon in 3 Nephi 13:4, as was the word “openly” in verses 8 and 16 of Matthew 6 (and 3 Nephi 13:6,18). Likewise, the Trinitarian ascription in 3 Nephi 13:13 and Matthew 6:13 in the KJV (“For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen”) is not supported by the earliest and most reliable manuscript witnesses to the text of the New Testament. Subsequent translations, including the ASV, omit the sentence altogether, or, in the case of the NASB, place it in brackets. The manuscript evidence simply does not support these additions as being in the original, inspired autograph authored by Matthew. Many additional instances of this same type of faux pas can be cited. The one who was responsible for producing The Book of Mormon in these cases unquestionably (1) relied on the KJV and (2) demonstrated his ignorance of textual criticism.

Third, in addition to errors that are due to textual variants, the KJV also made grammatical and stylistic errors that were naively copied by The Book of Mormon. For example, in Hebrew, singular masculine nouns are changed to plural by appending “im” (pronounced “eem”)—the equivalent of “s” or “es” in English. The Hebrew words “cherub” and “seraph” are singular nouns. The plural forms of these words are “cherubim” and “seraphim.” The KJV translators mistakenly added an “s” (“cherubims” and “seraphims”) to these terms to denote a plural form (e.g., Genesis 3:24; Exodus 25:18,19,20,22; Isaiah 6:2,6; Hebrews 9:5). Alluding to cherubim, Adam Clarke explained: “[T]o add an s to this when we introduce such words into English, is very improper; therefore the word should be written cherubim, not cherubims” (n.d., 1:56, italics in orig.; cf. Lewis, 1991, p. 59). Yet the original 1830 Book of Mormon reproduced the same mistake as the KJV in this regard (Alma 12:21; 42:2,3; 2 Nephi 16:2,6), though corrections were made in later editions. The unbiased observer is forced to conclude: God knows Hebrew and how to transfer words from one language to another; the author of The Book of Mormon obviously did not.

Another sample of stylistic error is the use of the expression “it came to pass.” This expression is a Semitism, or Hebraism, i.e., an idiomatic oddity or peculiarity of the Hebrew language that lacks a corresponding equivalent in English. Newer translations either drop it completely or render it with an approximate English equivalent like “it came about” or “it happened.” The KJV simply transferred the Semitism directly into English and, under its influence, has caused the expression to be naturalized into English religious usage. Nevertheless, it is not an idiom that is native to English. Yet The Book of Mormon is literally inundated with the expression—as if the author was deliberately attempting to make his writing sound biblically or divinely authentic. In reality, he was unwittingly making it sound Semitic in 17th-century English! But God would not have communicated with Americans in 1830 through the convoluted pathway of Hebrew, to 17th-century British English, to 19th-century American English. Likewise, the peoples of the specific historical periods that The Book of Mormon claims to be depicting (e.g., the Nephites) would have had no earthly reason to have spoken in Hebrew themselves, nor to have their history reported in Hebrew phraseology and Semitic idiom. Apparently, later Mormon authorities, unable to completely eradicate this stylistic feature due to its extensive occurrence, were nevertheless so uncomfortable with the overuse of the phrase that they have deleted some of its occurrences when so many were used in close proximity with each other. For example, in Alma 14:7, the original Book of Mormon had three occurrences of “it came to pass”—in the same verse! Current editions have only one—which raises the additional question of The Book of Mormon’s own faulty transmission.

Fourth, in 3 Nephi 20:23-26, Jesus is represented as the speaker, and He applies to Himself the prophecy that Moses made in Deuteronomy 18:15,18-19. Yet, the author of The Book of Mormon unquestionably relied on Acts 3:22-26, where Peter paraphrased the Deuteronomy passage, and then added his own comments. The Book of Mormon mistakenly has Jesus including Peter’s appended comments as if they were part of Moses’ words in Deuteronomy. Compare the three passages to see the fallacy:

 

Deuteronomy 18:15,19 (KJV)	Acts 3:22-26 (KJV)	3 Nephi 20:23-26
15 The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken. 19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.	22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. 23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. 24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. 25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. 26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.	23 Behold, I am he of whom Moses spake, saying: A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.   And it shall come to pass that every soul who will not hear that prophet shall be cut off from among the people.   24 Verily I say unto you, yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have testified of me. 25 And behold, ye are the children of the prophets; and ye are of the house of Israel; and ye are of the covenant which the Father made with your fathers, saying unto Abraham: And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. 26 The Father having raised me up unto you first, and sent me to bless you in turning away every one of you from his iniquities; and this because ye are the children of the covenant—

 

Contradiction Among Mormon Scriptures

In addition to the absurdities and contradictions that exist within The Book of Mormon in its close reliance on the KJV, contradictions also exist between The Book of Mormon and the other Mormon scriptures. Consider, for example, the serious contradiction in the promulgation of polygamy. The Book of Mormon condemns the practice of plural marriages in no uncertain terms. The condemnation comes in a context in which Jacob denounced the wickedness of the Nephites in the 5th-6th centuries B.C.:

But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.... Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old. Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts (Jacob 2:23-24,26-28, emp. added; cf. 1:15; Ether 10:5; Doctrine and Covenants 49:16).

These referenced verses from The Book of Mormon enjoin monogamy with uncompromising vigor. Yet the Doctrine and Covenants flatly contradicts The Book of Mormon on this point:

Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter. Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same. For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory. ...David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me. David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife (132:1-4,38-39, emp. added).

Two serious contradictions are evident. First, The Book of Mormon clearly condemned plural marriage as one of the “grosser crimes” and “whoredom”—at least among the Nephites. It specifically singled out the plural marriages of David and Solomon, denouncing them as an “abomination.” Yet Doctrine and Covenants insisted that David and Solomon were completely justified, and committed no sin in having multiple wives and concubines. Observe the comparison between the two books:

 

BOOK OF MORMON	DOCTRINE & COVENANTS
”David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.“	”David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon…and in nothing did they sin…. David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me.“

To avoid self-contradiction, the author of The Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants could have worded these verses differently. For example, he could have stated that God enjoined plural marriages at one point in history, but chose not to enjoin the practice at another point in history. Or, he could have said that plural marriages were to be practiced by some people early in history but not by others later in history. In either case, no contradiction would exist. A Bible example is seen in the fact that God enjoined animal sacrifice on the Jews in the Old Testament, but forbade its use for all people in the New Testament. But this is not what Mormon scripture does! It specifically identifies the polygamy of David and Solomon, and then makes the mistake of both approving and condemning it. This circumstance constitutes a flat contradiction. David and Solomon having multiple wives was both right and not right at the same time and in the same way. Two statements are contradictory when they cannot both be true (cf. McGarvey, 1974, 3:31). [NOTE: Yet another indication of Joseph Smith’s uninspired status was his allusion in the above quotation (Jacob 2:27) to a man being permitted only one wife, but “concubines he shall have none.” This reference betrays an ignorance of the use of an ancient term. A “concubine” in antiquity was a wife—not a mistress (unmarried sexual partner)—despite popular misconception (cf. Hamilton, 1980, 2:724)].

Second, Doctrine and Covenants states that the practice of plural marriage in this life is an everlasting covenant. The term “eternal” or “everlasting” as used in the Bible can sometimes be abbreviated to refer to a period of time of limited duration (e.g., Jonah 2:6). However, when additional terminology is employed that reinforces the primary meaning of “forever,” an abbreviated period is excluded. Terminology used in The Book of Mormon shows that “everlasting,” as applied to the covenant of plural marriage, was intended in its ordinary meaning of forever. Its application included one’s entire earthly sojourn, since the text says Solomon, Moses, and many others had practiced it “from the beginning of creation until this time.” Other references confirm this understanding: “both as well for time and for all eternity” (D&C 132:7); “in the world” (D&C 132:15); “on the earth” (D&C 132:46,48). Even Joseph Smith’s wife, Emma, was commanded to accept the additional wives given by God to her husband (D&C 132:52). Section 132 of Doctrine and Covenants claims to have been revealed to Joseph Smith in 1843. Yet 47 years later, on September 24, 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued an official repudiation of the doctrine:

We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice.... There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy.... And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land” (“Official Declaration—1” in Doctrine and Covenants, 1981, pp. 291-292).

In excerpts from three addresses that he delivered regarding this manifesto, Woodruff explained that if they continued to practice plural marriage, temples would be confiscated by the civil authorities, and the First Presidency and Twelve, and family heads, would be imprisoned. If, on the other hand, they ceased the practice, in order to abide by the law of the land, they would be able to continue the duties and ordinances of the church (including baptism for the dead). Question: Why would God refer to plural marriage as a perpetual practice that would bring damnation upon those who fail to practice it, and then call for Latter-day Saints to refrain from such marriages? God is timeless, and would have known ahead of time that the U.S. government would reach a point at which it would call the Mormon practice of plural marriage to account. Therefore, He would not have enjoined the requirement as “everlasting” if He later intended to nullify the practice. Nor would God have withdrawn one of His “everlasting commandments” simply because the law of the land by a pagan government made the commandment illegal and implemented persecution. When in all of human history has God ever bowed to civil government in its opposition to His will—even when it brought severe persecution and death to His followers?

Changes and Corrections

Another legitimate affirmation listed in “The Challenge” is condition #10: “When you finish in 60 days, you must make no changes in the text. The first edition must stand forever” (p. 1, emp. added). “Houston, we have a problem.” Informed students of the Bible are well aware that no original autographs of the Bible are extant. We are completely dependent upon copies of copies of copies (e.g., Comfort, 1990, p. 4). Not so with The Book of Mormon.

Original 1830 Book of Mormon Image Courtesy Library of Congress

The original 1830 first printed edition of The Book of Mormon exists! In the words of Latter-day Saints President Wilford C. Wood in 1958: “I do testify that the uncut sheets of the complete First Edition of the Book of Mormon have been reproduced in its original unchanged condition; that this is a correct and perfect restoration of the First Edition of the Book of Mormon as received by the Prophet Joseph Smith and printed in Palmyra, New York in 1830” (The Book of Mormon, 1830, prefatory material). Latter-day Saint authorities have repeatedly affirmed that the original Book of Mormon contained no errors. In 1883, George Reynolds, a member of the First Council of the Seventy, stated: “It was done by divine aid” (p. 71). Reynolds referred to the eyewitness account of Martin Harris—one of the scribes who participated with Joseph Smith in the translation of The Book of Mormon (p. 91). Joseph Smith claimed to have found gold plates that he translated into English using an instrument known as the “Urim and Thummim”—two white stones fastened together by a casing of silver, comparable to spectacles. Smith would hold the stones between himself and the gold plates. In 1881, the sixth president of the Mormon Church, Joseph F. Smith, explained the translation process (as reported by Oliver Huntington):

The Lord caused each word spelled as it is in the Book to appear on the stones in short sentences or words, and when Joseph had uttered the sentence or word before him and the scribe had written it properly, that sentence would disappear and another appear. And if there was a word wrongly written or even a letter incorrect the writing on the stones would remain there. Then Joseph would require the scribe to spell the reading of the last spoken and thus find the mistake and when corrected the sentence or word would disappear as usual (n.d., p. 168, emp. added).

This procedure, that guaranteed complete accuracy of transcription, was further verified by David Whitmer. Whitmer, who continues to be listed in currently circulating copies of The Book of Mormon as one of the trio that constitute “The Testimony of the Three Witnesses,” described the process of translation in the following words:

I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man (Whitmer, 1887, Ch. 1, emp. added).

In view of the specific procedures by which the gold plates were translated, The Book of Mormon ought to be perfect. Yet, when one compares the original Book of Mormon with a currently circulating edition, one observes that many changes have been made in The Book of Mormon since the original 1830 edition. This circumstance is completely unlike manmade translations of the Bible. All translators of the Bible are uninspired in their translating efforts. Joseph Smith, on the other hand, claimed to have been supernaturally guided in the process of translating The Book of Mormon, and preserved from making any errors. One official explanation as to why the original 1830 edition of The Book of Mormon was filled with grammatical mistakes and content blunders is—“printer’s errors.” This claim, of course, contradicts the above claim of President Wilford, who vouched for the authenticity of the existing 1830 edition and even included in his reproduction of it a “memorandum” by one of the original printer’s associates—John Gilbert. The memorandum recounts the care given to insuring accuracy in the printing of the manuscript that was brought to the printer by Hyrum Smith (Joseph’s brother), who, along with Martin Harris, supervised the project. Hence, the claim that “printer’s errors” are responsible for the errors in the original 1830 edition would be a suitable explanation if it fit the facts, but it simply cannot account for the types of mistakes contained in The Book of Mormon—the types of mistakes printers do not make.

Grammatical Mistakes

Consider a few of the estimated 4,000+ grammatical mistakes that have been corrected in subsequent editions. The original 1830 Book of Mormon in Jacob 7:24 read, “but it all were vain.” Alma 48:25 read, “for the promise of the Lord were....” Alma 53:5 read, “it were easy to guard them.” 1 Nephi 5:11 read, “Adam and Eve, which was our first parents.” All of these grammatical (not printer) errors have been corrected in more recent editions.

Content Mistakes

Consider also a few of the many changes that have been made that correct content mistakes. In Mosiah 21:28, “Benjamin” has been changed to “Mosiah” (since King Benjamin was already dead at this point in the narrative—Mosiah 6:4-5). In Alma 37:21, “directors” has been changed to “interpreters.” In 1 Nephi 13:32, “state of awful woundedness” has been changed to “awful state of blindness.” In Mosiah 27:29, “wrecked” has been changed to “racked.” In Alma 13:20 and 41:1, “arrest” has been changed to “wrest.” In Alma 17:13, “arriven” has been changed to “arrived.” Even the original 1830 title page, which listed Joseph Smith as “Author and Proprietor,” has been altered; now he is simply “translator.” In 1 Nephi 20:1, the phrase “or out of the waters of baptism” has been inserted. It was not in the original 1830 edition.

Please observe: Printers occasionally transpose letters, or garble a word, or insert the same line twice, or omit a word or two, perhaps a line here and there. But the above changes are not the kinds of errors that printers make.

[to be continued]

REFERENCES

Bales, James (1958), The Book of Mormon? (Rosemead, CA: Old Paths Book Club).

The Book of Mormon (1830), (Salt Lake City, UT: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), [On-line], URL: http://www.irr.org/mit/bom/1830bom-default.html.

The Book of Mormon (1981 reprint), (Salt Lake City, UT: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).

“A Brief Explanation About the Book of Mormon” (1981), The Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, UT: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).

“The Challenge the Book of Mormon Makes to the World” (1990), (Euless, TX: Texas Fort Worth Mission).

Clarke, Adam (no date), Clarke’s Commentary: Genesis-Deuteronomy (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury).

Comfort, Philip (1990), Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House).

Doctrine and Covenants (1981 reprint), (Salt Lake City, UT: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).

Hamilton, Victor P. (1980), “pilegesh,” in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason Archer Jr., and Bruce Waltke (Chicago, IL: Moody).

Huntington, Oliver B. (no date), Oliver Boardman Huntington Journals, 1842-1900 (Salt Lake City, UT: Utah State Historical Society).

Lewis, Jack P. (1991), The English Bible From KJV to NIV (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), second edition.

Lyons, Eric (2005), The Anvil Rings:
Answers to Alleged Bible Discrepancies (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Lyons, Eric and Bert Thompson (2002), “In the ‘Image and Likeness of God,’” Reason & Revelation [Part I & Part II], 22:17-23,25-31, March/April.

McGarvey, J. W. (1974 reprint), Evidences of Christianity (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate Company).

Metzger, Bruce M. (1968), The Text of the New Testament (New York, NY: Oxford University Press).

Miller, Dave (2005), The Quran Unveiled (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Reynolds, George (1883), The Myth of the “Manuscript Found,” (Salt Lake City, UT: Juvenile Instructor Office).

Tanner, Jerald and Sandra (1972), Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? (Salt Lake City, UT: Modern Microfilm).

Whitmer, David (1887), An Address to All Believers in Christ, [On-line], URL: http://www.irr.org/mit/address-ch1.html.