Does the Book of Mormon contradict the Bible?

Sorry to interrupt the flow, but is it acceptable to go back to the question of the OP?

quote:

---

Peg is under the impression that the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible. I have asked her to provide 3 examples of the Book of Mormon contradicting the Bible. She has only responded so far with quotes from Joseph Smith, and a non-referenced summary of the LDS Church Belief.

---

I'll just present one contradiction in this post, the date of the start of the Christian Church.According to the Bible, the Christian Church began at the Feast of Pentecost, 50 days after Christs' crucifixion, as detailed in Acts 2. Note that in Mt 16:18, Jesus said that His Church was still future: But according to the Book of Mormon, it began much earlier. Mosiah 18:17, supposedly written about 145 BC, says: [I can post more. But do they necessarily have to be from the Book of Mormon? It's easier to find contradictions between the Bible and the Doctrine and Covenants, if that's an acceptable source.]

According to the Bible, Jesus was born in Bethlehem: and this had been predicted by the prophet Micah: But the Book of Mormon says Jesus was born in Jerusalem:

According to the Old Testament, priests of Israel were exclusively from the tribe of Levi (who was one of the sons of Jacob): But according to the Book of Mormon, Jacob himself and Joseph (one of Jacob's sons and a brother of Levi) were priests. (These men could not be priests according to the Bible.)

The Bible says that there was darkness for three hours at the time of Jesus' crucifixion: But the Book of Mormon says that this darkness extended for three days:

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: But the Book of Mormon says that our works are necessary: and Mormon doctrine clarifies that this means God's grace plus our works.

quote:

---

This verse, and the verses surrounding it, is speaking of who is to guard the Ark of the Covenant, not a general qualification for priesthood.

---

You are correct; the context of Num 3 is the specific duties of Aaron and his descendents regarding the priesthood. However, in this discussion it is made clear that the Levites are the exclusive priests of Israel. Jacob and his other sons could not be priests, contrary to the claims of the Book of Mormon.For more support of this (that only the Levites are priests of Israel) you could look at the division of the tribes and the duties of the Levites throughout Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

quote:

---

This is too easy.

---

How so?

quote:

---

James 2
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, Faith without works is dead?

---

Good works are a result of salvation, not a means of it. I quoted Eph 2:8-9 earlier. Read the next verse (Eph 2:10), which explains this and is consistent with Js 2:20.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Which was within the Land of Jerusalem

---

What do you mean by "land of Jerusalem?" Where is this phrase used (either in the Bible or in the Book of Mormon) and what is its context?Jerusalem was/is a city, not a land. Bethlehem is a separate, different city. The two cities are not the same.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

If this is true, then why is faith "dead" without works? Seems to me that the author is saying to believe alone will not save you.

---

Not quite. James seems to be saying that one who claims to have faith but has no works is not saved. This is consistent with what Paul says in Eph 2: good works is a result, but not a means, of salvation.But this discussion of James is getting off-topic. In your OP you asked for "examples of the Book of Mormon contradicting the Bible." The Book of Mormon (and Mormon doctrine) say that the means of salvation is God's grace plus one's own works. Paul in Eph 2:8-10, says the means of salvation is God's grace and not one's own works. This constitutes a contradiction between the Book of Mormon and the Bible, irrespective of how James should be interpreted.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.Edited by kbertsche, : clarified what I meant by "getting off-topic"

quote:

---

Refer to my source.

---

Sorry--I missed the quote and source earlier.Interesting quote, but I'm having trouble verifying it. I only own the abridged ANET, not the full one. The translation of EA that I find online here has no mention of "Bethlehem." It does have the phrase "land of Jerusalem," but the context does not clarify what this means.Are there any biblical or Book of Mormon uses of the phrase "land of Jerusalem," or is this phrase restricted to the El Amarna letters? I suspect that this is a rarely used phrase. If so, it is a stretch to claim that this occurrance of "Jerusalem" in the Book of Mormon really means "land of Jerusalem."Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

You do realize Helaman and Nephi are referring to their own land, and not the middle east... right?

---

So do you propose that there was three hours of darkness in Palestine and three days of darkness in the Americas?Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Seems you have your names confused. Jacob and Joseph were Nephi's younger brothers, and not the Jacob and Joseph of the OT.

---

I didn't realize this; i apparently read the passage too quickly. Your claim does seem to be supported by the context.

quote:

---

Mosiah 29:42 and Alma 4:20 infer that Lehi, and his lineage were operating under the high priesthood, or Melchizedek Priesthood, which is not bound by lineage, but conferred by god.

---

This would eliminate the contradiction. Contradiction 3 is not a good argument.

quote:

---

What happened with Alma in the Book of Mormon is no different than what John the Baptist did. Alma was clearly establishing the Church of God/Christ in preparation for the coming messiah.

---

Except that John the Baptist never claimed that the "church of Christ" had begun. Jesus later claimed that it had not begun. Yet the Book of Mormon said that in about 145 BC "they were called the church of God, or the church of Christ, from that time forward."At the time when Mt 16:18 was spoken, had Christ's church begun or not? The Bible says "no" but the Book of Mormon says "yes," a contradiction.

quote:

---

What could be more on topic than the concept of justification by works? The message of justification by faith is the whole purpose of Scripture from before Abraham onwards, and the BoM contradicts Scripture on that very doctrine.

---

Agreed--I wasn't clear and have now clarified my post. What I meant was that the discussion of how to interpret James was diverting us from discussing the clear contradiction between the Book of Mormon and Paul.

I've done a bit more searching on the phrase "land of jerusalem" and found a few things:1) There are indeed some modern scholarly uses of the phrase. But these seem to refer either to "land" in the sense of "real estate" or "geography," not in the sense of a territory or region.2) The El-Amarna letters seem to have a few references to the "land of Jerusalem." There are two in EA 286 and one in EA 287. There is also a reference to the "territory of Jerusalem" in EA 290, mentioning Bet-Ninib as a city in this territory. (This is apparently what you mentioned in Message 83 but with the wrong tablet number and with the older, less preferred translation Bit-Lahmi.)
(The El-Amarna letters are available online here and here)The El-Amarna letters do seem to use "land of Jerusalem" in the sense of "territory" or "region," supporting your contention. And the Book of Mormon also uses "land of Jerusalem" in a few places, perhaps with a similar connotation of "territory" or "region" (though I'm not fully convinced of this yet).However, remember that the El Amarna letters were written by Canaanites in the Late Bronze period (14th century BC). The phrase "land of Jerusalem" is not found in Scripture. There is no evidence that it was used in Palestine after the Israelite conquest. So where did Lehi (7 centuries later) or Joseph Smith come up with the phrase "land of Jerusalem?" What did they mean by it? Is there any historical or linguistic connection between Book of Mormon usage and the El Amarna tablets? I'd say any connection is extremely doubtful.Further, in the passage in question:

quote:

---

Alma 7:10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers

---

the phrase used is "Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers", not the "land of Jerusalem." Even if the latter is demonstrated to mean "territory" or "region" in the Book of Mormon, does the former have the same meaning, and how would you establish this? It seems to me that the former has more the sense of "real estate" or "possession."Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.