Does the Book of Mormon contradict the Bible?

Hi, Kbertsche. Yep, that's what it says.Do you have a problem with this?
If so, why?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

How is it that people have problems?

Hi, Ochaye. Mares eat oats and does eat oats and I'll be home for Christmas. I'll tell you what I'm talking about if you tell me what you're talking about.Edited by Bluejay, : Formatting

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

quote:

---

Hi, Kbertsche.
kbertsche writes:

quote:

---

So do you propose that there was three hours of darkness in Palestine and three days of darkness in the Americas?

---

Yep, that's what it says.

​

Do you have a problem with this?
If so, why?

---

So how do you reconcile your position with this passage from the Book of Mormon? Was the Book of Mormon wrong when it prophecied that the darkness would cover not only the Americas, but the whole earth, for three days?Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

Of the 5 contradictions that I've posted so far, this is by far the most fundamental and important, so I'd like to add some quotes to it. As I said in Message 58, "The Bible says that we are saved by God's grace, through faith alone, not due to any works, achievements, or efforts on our part."I quoted Eph 2:8-9 in Message 58. Titus 3:5 is also quite clear: In contrast, the Book of Mormon teaches that our works are necessary as a means of salvation. We saw this in 2 Nephi 25:23, but it is also clear in Moroni 10:32: According to the Book of Mormon, God's grace is sufficient to save us only if we clean up our lives and live righteously first. The Bible teaches the opposite. We are unable to clean up our lives or to live righteously until after God saves us, and He saves us on the basis of His mercy and grace alone.

Hi, Kbertsche.

quote:

---

You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.
And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend.
You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

​

-James 2:22-24 (NIV)
emphasis mine

---

The LDS Church does not use the NIV, but I like the wording for this particular chapter.It seems that you've done a good job exposing a situation in which the Bible contradicts itself. But, there is a biblical precedent for the LDS belief in works, so I'm afraid Mormonism passes this test easily.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Kbertsche. What Samuel prophesied didn't happen exactly the way Samuel prophesied it. What you've exposed is a prophet making a minor mistake in his prophecy. This is akin to Moses smiting the rock when he was supposed to speak to it (Numbers 20: 7-12).The BoM contains a scripture that covers such problems, too:

quote:

---

And if there be faults [in this record] they be the faults of a man. But behold, we know no fault; nevertheless God knoweth all things...

---

But, it didn't actually cover the entire earth, and the BoM doesn't say that it did, so you've got no contradiction with actual events.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

quote:

---

The LDS Church does not use the NIV, but I like the wording for this particular chapter.

​

It seems that you've done a good job exposing a situation in which the Bible contradicts itself. But, there is a biblical precedent for the LDS belief in works, so I'm afraid Mormonism passes this test easily.

---

You are in good company if you think that James contradicts Paul. Martin Luther thought something similar. But I disagree. Salvation comes by faith alone, with good works as a result of salvation. Note that James does not use the word "saved," he uses the word "justified." Explaining the nuances in detail would take some time and would take us off-topic. But I'll try to lay it out very briefly.The word "justified" is literally "declared righteous" in the NT. It usually implies "declared righteous by God" and refers to salvation in Scripture, but not always (this is easily demonstrated with a concordance). Here James is using it in the sense of "declared to be righteous by others" or "demonstrated to be righteous." As James says, this is only possible by looking at one's deeds, since faith cannot be seen by man. Compare Js 2 with Rom 4-5, and ask yourself, "When was Abraham justified and on what basis?" Paul and James are speaking of two different justifications. Note that Paul hints at James' usage of the word in Rom 4:2.But as I said earlier, discussion of how to interpret James is irrelevant to whether or not the Book of Mormon contradicts what Paul wrote. It clearly does, as you seem to admit. Unless you can successfully argue for a different interpretation of either Paul's writings or the Book of Mormon, this stands as a clear (and fundamental) contradiction between the Book of Mormon and the Bible, answering the challenge of the OP.

quote:

---

What Samuel prophesied didn't happen exactly the way Samuel prophesied it. What you've exposed is a prophet making a minor mistake in his prophecy. This is akin to Moses smiting the rock when he was supposed to speak to it (Numbers 20: 7-12).

​

The BoM contains a scripture that covers such problems, too:

​

quote:

---

And if there be faults [in this record] they be the faults of a man. But behold, we know no fault; nevertheless God knoweth all things...

---

But, it didn't actually cover the entire earth, and the BoM doesn't say that it did, so you've got no contradiction with actual events.

---

Your explanation might be able to reconcile the passages in the Book of Mormon with one another and with the Bible, but it seems to me that this is an uncomfortable reconciliation. You are forced to the position that a prophecy in the Book of Mormon is wrong. And you have the odd situation of three hours' darkness in Palestine and three days' darkness in the Americas. Do Mormons propose a reason for the different lengths of time?It seems much more likely to me that Joseph Smith simply mis-remembered the story, substituting "day" for "hour." Does the Book of Mormon ever mention the three hours' darkness in Palestine? It would strengthen your case somewhat if the Book of Mormon mentioned both, but even if it does the three days could still be simply a mistake on Joseph Smith's part.

quote:

---

What Samuel prophesied didn't happen exactly the way Samuel prophesied it. What you've exposed is a prophet making a minor mistake in his prophecy. This is akin to Moses smiting the rock when he was supposed to speak to it (Numbers 20: 7-12).

​

The BoM contains a scripture that covers such problems, too:

​

quote:

---

And if there be faults [in this record] they be the faults of a man. But behold, we know no fault; nevertheless God knoweth all things...

---

But, it didn't actually cover the entire earth, and the BoM doesn't say that it did, so you've got no contradiction with actual events.

---

Your explanation reveals a sixth contradiction between the Book of Mormon and the Bible: the required accuracy of prophecy.The Bible speaks of both true and false prophets of God. One characteristic of a true prophet is that his prophecies come true: According to the Bible, prophets of God were not allowed any errors in their prophecy. But you say that the Book of Mormon does allow prophets of God to have errors in their prophecy. This is a contradiction between the Book of Mormon and the Bible. According to to the Bible, Samuel from the Book of Mormon should have been classed as a false prophet and killed. But according to the Book of Mormon, he is a true prophet.[Note that this is unrelated to Moses striking the rock. Moses was not speaking a prediction in God's name which turned out to be false (see wording of Deut 18 above). Moses was disobeying God's instruction. Yes, this was a very bad thing. But disobedience is not the same as making a false prophecy.]

Hi, Kbertsche. Ah, but, right there, you admit that the epistle to James can be interpreted to support the Mormon view.So, what you're saying is that the BoM only contradicts the Bible if James 2 is interpreted the way you interpret it?So, why do you think the interpretation of James 2 is off-topic?----- Note also that the epistle to James includes this:

quote:

---

You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.

---

Faith is made complete by works. This puts the operative power on works. Thus, works are an active part of salvation.On a related note: why did God give commandments if works don't matter?----- Okay, so what you're saying is that, since the Bible contains two contradictory statements, if the BoM contradicts either one of these, it is false.I say the BoM teaching on this matter is clearly based on biblical precedent, despite your whining that you disagree with the interpretation.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Kbertsche. Uncomfortable? What's so uncomfortable about it?I am equally comfortable with the belief that the Flood did not cover the entire Earth, despite what it says in the Bible.If I were a Nephite, and I saw all those cities being destroyed, and experienced the vapor of darkness for three days, do you really think it would cause a religious crisis for me if I found out that only my half of the planet was covered, instead of the whole thing?What if it were later revealed that Jesus had actually broken six loaves, or that he had really only fed 1000 people, instead of 4000? Would that shake your faith?Besides, as far as Samuel the Lamanite (or anybody he told) ever knew, the darkness did cover the entire earth.----- We're talking about miracles, Kbertsche: the reason we propose is, "Goddidit." What else needs to be explained?----- Joseph Smith did have his own Bible, you know, and he spent a lot of time reading it (you've heard of the Joseph Smith Translation, I assume?).Edited by Bluejay, : little dashes between segments

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Kbertsche. You're not going to get far with this one.The Book of Mormon was an abridged compilation of many hundreds and hundreds of records that the Nephites had written. It's entirely possible that it wasn't Samuel's mistake, but the mistake of one of the abridgers, Mormon or Moroni.I meant for that to be in my last post, but I guess I thought the quote from Moroni about the possibility of faults in the BoM covered that, so I didn't explicitly state it.-----At any rate, people are humans, and all humans make mistakes, even prophets. It was meant to be a sign for the Nephites, and it fulfilled its purpose. Thus, in my mind, the prophecy was fulfilled.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

quote:

---

the epistle to James can be interpreted to support the Mormon view.

---

If Mormons are perfect, it can.'Whoever breaks one commandment is guilty of breaking them all.' Jas 2:10 GNB

quote:

---

Ah, but, right there, you admit that the epistle to James can be interpreted to support the Mormon view.

---

Mis-interpreted would be a better word.

quote:

---

So, what you're saying is that the BoM only contradicts the Bible if James 2 is interpreted the way you interpret it?

---

No, I'm saying that the Book of Mormon contradicts Eph 2:8-10 and Titus 3:5 and many other passages in the Bible irrespective of how James 2 is interpreted. Even if James 2 is interpreted the way you would like, it doesn't make these other passages disappear.

quote:

---

So, why do you think the interpretation of James 2 is off-topic?

---

The thread topic is not "What is the correct interpretation of James 2?" Rather, it is "Does the Book of Mormon contradict the Bible?" I've presented a contradiction between 2 Nephi 25:23 and Moroni 10:32 in the Book of Mormon, and Eph 2:8-10 and Titus 3:5 in the Bible. Either these passages do contradict, or they don't. Discussing James is interesting, but it does not deal with the contradiction that I've presented. For this we need to discuss the passages 2 Nephi 25:23, Moroni 10:32, Eph 2:8-10 and Titus 3:5.

quote:

---

Okay, so what you're saying is that, since the Bible contains two contradictory statements, if the BoM contradicts either one of these, it is false.

---

No, but even if the Bible contained two contradictory statements (which I deny), and the BoM contradicted either of these, we would have satisfied the OP request for a place where "the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible."BTW, is it standard Mormon doctrine to maintain that the Bible contradicts itself, as you seem to be doing? Do you believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and if so, how do you reconcile these two positions?

quote:

---

I say the BoM teaching on this matter is clearly based on biblical precedent, despite your whining that you disagree with the interpretation.

---

And I claim that the BoM teaching on the means of salvation is consistent only with a misinterpretation of James. But whether or not either of these claims is correct is a red herring. It does not address the contradiction that I've presented between 2 Nephi 25:23 and Moroni 10:32 in the Book of Mormon, and Eph 2:8-10 and Titus 3:5 in the Bible.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.