Why Don't You Believe the Bible?
A question I've been asked many times over the years is actually one of the first questions I had about the Church when I began investigating it. How could the LDS church claim to believe the Bible, and at the same time say that The Book of Mormon was scripture? My question was rooted in my understanding at that time of the passage in the book of The Revelation of St. John the Divine in the Bible, which reads:
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. (Revelation 22:18, KJV)
It just seemed to me that calling The Book of Mormon “scripture” was adding to the Bible, which appeared to be expressly prohibited. I had read that passage in Revelation myself more than once, and had heard others talk about it on several occasions. It seemed rather clear.
However, there were several pieces of information I was missing, which are needed to fully understand the context of the passage in Revelation to which I was referring. Consider the following:
• The Bible wasn't written all at once, such as how one would write a novel. Rather, it was written in pieces, which pieces were assembled over the centuries and even millenia into what we now call the Bible. James E. Talmadge writes:
The word Bible, though singular in form, is the English representative of a Greek plural, Biblia, signifying literally “books”. The use of the word probably dates from the fourth century .... The word “Biblia” was thus endowed with a special meaning in the Greek, signifying the holy books as distinguishing sacred scriptures from other writings; and the term soon became current in the Latin, in which tongue it was used from the first in its special sense. Through Latin usage, perhaps during the thirteenth century, the word came to be regarded as a singular noun signifying “the book”. This departure from the plural meaning, invariably associated with the term in the Greek original, tends to obscure the facts. It may appear that the derivation of a word is of small importance; yet in this case the original form and first use of the title now current as that of the sacred volume must be of instructive interest, as throwing some light upon the compilation of the book in its present form. (James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith, Ch.13, Pg.237-8)
Each book of the Bible was produced as God inspired various writers from time to time. At different points in history, certain writings were canonized (recognized and adopted as scripture by an authoritative body) and bound together in a single volume. Even today, there is wide disagreement among religious groups as to what exactly should be included in "scripture". The Jews accept what is known to Christians as the Old Testament, but reject the New Testament in its entirety. The Catholics have a version of the Bible known as the Douay version, while much of the rest of English-speaking Christianity uses the King James version, which includes fewer books than the Douay version. Most versions of the Bible clearly reference other books of scripture which are not contained in the Bible--books which appear to be missing. So, without going through the litany of how we got to where we are today, let it suffice to say that rather than a divine manifestation wherein God himself handed the Bible in its entirety to a prophet, there has been a human-involved process through which inspired writings have become accepted and included in what is known as the Bible.
• Given the above, the next important point is that the Bible is not put together chronologically. All these books which make up the Bible were written at different times, but were not assembled in the exact order in which they were written. In fact, depending on the version of scripture to which one refers, the books might be arranged according to the importance placed on the prophet-author, or by subject matter (historical, poetical, and prophetical).
• We don't know the exact date that some of the books of the Bible were written, but we do know approximate dates for them. It is clear in most cases that one particular book was written before or after another, by virtue of reference to some historical event or to another book of the Bible.
• The Book of Revelation was written by John, one of Jesus' Twelve apostles. Rrecall that John was given the special promise that he would not taste of death until the Savior returned again to the earth. Historians generally agree that it was during the reign of a cruel Roman emperor, Domitian Ceasar, who was persecuting the Church, that John was arrested, carried to Rome, condemned to death, and plunged into boiling oil. John's life being miraculously preserved through the power of God, he was then banished to Patmos, a barren, rocky little island in the Aegean Sea. According to tradition, he lived there for eighteen months, at hard labor in the lead mines. It was while on Patmos that John received and wrote the revelation known as the book of Revelation, which of course contains the passage to which I had referred in my discussion with the missionaries.
But now, the point: John left the Isle of Patmos and returned to Ephesus, where he much later wrote what is now referred to as The Gospel According to St. John! This fact in itself is enough to show that the book of Revelation was never intended to be the last inspiration God would ever give to mankind, to be written and distributed for our enlightenment.
• Even more amazing is a second passage found in the Bible, quite similar to what is found in Revelation:
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (Deuteronomy 4:2)
Clearly, the book of Deuteronomy, authored by Moses and found in the Old Testament, was written thousands of years before the book of Revelation. It would be totally illogical to think that everything contained in the Bible written after Deuteronomy is not authorized or inspired by God. The only explanation to all of this must be that when man is inspired to write, and adds words similar to what Moses and John have included in Deuteronomy and Revelation, that the instruction to not add anything is clearly directed at those who would have occasion to copy, print, edit, or somehow disseminate what God had intended to be written, in that particular epistle. It could not possibly mean that God had, at that point, severed all communication with mankind, and would never again reveal himself or give further inspiration to his children!
• One final point to ponder: During his earthly ministry, Jesus made this statement:
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold; them also must I bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. (John 10:16)
Would it not seem implausible that these "other sheep" to whom Jesus refers would hear his voice, and yet not write down Jesus' teachings? And would not these writings be of great value to the world? Quite simply, this is the claim of the Book of Mormon--that the inhabitants of the western hemisphere were some of those "other sheep", that Jesus kept his promise and did speak to them also, and as they kept the sacred writings as they were commanded to do, these writings were brought forth in a miraculous way for the benefit of people around the world.
In the final analysis, there is really only one sure way to know that the Book of Mormon contains the inspired word of God; that is to know for oneself, independent of all the reasoning of learned men, apart from all the familial and cultural influences that anchor our point of reference, and beyond all possible scientific analysis that may come to bear on resolving the question; to know for oneself, by reading, pondering, and praying about the book until God reveals its origin to the sincere seeker. And one last point to ponder: I would posit that knowing that the Bible is inspired requires nothing short of the same effort.
No comments:
Post a Comment