Back to Mormonism Researched Page

The Website Solid Rock Ministries (hereafter SRM) notes the following about me:

In Notes About the Bible Kerry Shirts attempts to refute Christian claims that "Mormons know nothing about the Bible." Unfortunately for Mr. Shirts, his article actually proves this very fact. (Kerry's words are italicized).

Since Christians have been pontificating that we Mormons know nothing about the Bible and its teachings while they are almost the epitome of the true Bible scholar, I thought it would be educational for us all to see just who is saying what about the Bible. Now since in the past I have been accused of having a Mormon bias and slant on understanding history, the Bible, God, etc., (and I plead guilty), I will use only non-Mormon scholars so as to keep this on a level par for the playing [sic]. I mean heavens, far be it from me to either talk off the top of my head, or use bias [sic] Mormon scholars only! I will use only Christian bias [sic] scholars for these notes - GRIN!

I wonder if Kerry is "grinning" due to his rather bad wording and grammar, or because he actually thinks he is going to hoist Christians on the own petard?

KERRY NOTES:

Well, what I am trying to do, apparently ineffectively is provide a little humor and not be a stuffed Shirt (get it? GRIN!) So please Christians, lets have a little fun and humor every now and again, k?

SRM NOTES:

Lets take a look at a couple of the biased "Christian scholars" that Kerry cites.

One is none other than the great Bible scholar Steve Allen, creator and first host of the Tonight Show on NBC. Allen's book, On the Bible, Religion, & Morality, was printed by Prometheus Books, an atheist book publisher.

KERRY NOTES:

Sigh.......can you refute his arguments or not? Heavenlies you guys, can you possibly deal with issues yet?

SRM NOTES:

A second "Bible scholar" is atheist Isaac Asimov; "American author and biochemist, a highly successful and prolific writer of science fiction and of science books for the layperson. He published about 500 volumes" (Encyclopedia Britannica).

KERRY NOTES:

Yes, and he ALSO dealt with the Bible. Can you refute his information? I don’t accept it, but heavenlies folks, you accuse us Mormons of only quoting ourselves and never getting into others’ views of the Bible, hence my use of various sorts of folks who have dealt with the Bible. I know I can refute them, but that is not the point. Can you?

SRM NOTES:

So much for Mr. Shirts "Christian scholars." Kerry continues:

KERRY NOTES:

Whoa there cowboy! Howling laughter!!! You mean out of all the various Bible scholars I DID use you only pull up the two out of over 20 who are NOT Christian scholars and leave the rest alone? Nifty trick man! REAL nifty. (notice the correct grammar here - smirk) So lessee [yeah, yeah I’ll do the SIC for you on this one, o.k.?] I utilized Robin Lane Fox, James C. Vanderkam, Robert J. Miller, Carsten Peter Thiede, Carolyn Osiek, Daniel N. Schowalter, Sir Richard Laurence, Willis Barnstone, Robert P. Carroll, Morton Smith & R. Joseph Hoffman, R. Joseph Hoffman, and you pick out the obvious two out of all the rest?! Thanks, I find that quite reassuring.......

SRM NOTES:

(Kerry said) Now I don't claim any particular order and even flow, but I do note that no matter where I turn to, in the biblical world of scriptural or historical exegesis, Christians are wrong about the Bible. In my view, anyone who cannot or does not acquaint themselves with the Biblical scholars, cannot possibly be well enough read in the scriptures to take too awfully seriously. Not that I am making an appeal to authority as *the* last word, but for crying out loud, I do think it's time Fundamentalist Christian "saved-by-gracers" ought to at least learn the ABC's of Biblical inquiries and research. You know, just the beginning simple basics at the very least! Credibility, after all, is not cheaply earned.

SRM FURTHER NOTES:

Now I don't claim any particular order, but I do note that no matter where I turn to, in the BOM world of scriptural or historical exegesis, Mormons are wrong about the Book of Mormon. And, since "saved by grace" is a basic tenet of Christianity, Mr. Shirts might want to learn the ABC's of basic Christian theology!

KERRY NOTES:

Ah, but the difference with your parody of myself in this is that you didn’t actually SHOW where Mormons are wrong. I actually DID quote and use many Bible scholars. So you don’t get this point until you bother doing your homework just a wee bit. And saved by grace is NOT a basic tenet of Christianity. I would ask WHICH Christianity? Saved by Grace is usually taken out of context in Christianity’s teachings, and nowhere more-so than in the Bible itself.

SRM NOTES:

(Kerry said) Michael C. Coogan's fascinating article "The Great Gulf Between Scholars and the Pew" in the magazine "Bible Review", is important for Christians of uneducated status to understand. We learn there something about the Bible that Christians do not know, or at least clumsily pretends [sic] not to know. The Bible is not one book by a single author, but, as the Bible itself clearly indicates, it is many books, by many authors who wrote over the course of more than a thousand years.

SRM FURTHER NOTES:

While it's possible that there is a "great gulf between scholars and the pew", how detrimental this is to Christians is certainly debatable. Just because a person is considered a "scholar" is no guarantee of reliable Biblical insight.

KERRY NOTES:

Reading the article more than shows there is a serious detrimental effect on Christians when they learn what their own ministers *really believe.* The Ministers are scared to actually teach their doubting faith, so they are pretending to believe.

SRM NOTES:

While it's obvious that the Bible has various authors, Christians have historically believed that the real author was God. Quoting from the The Chicago Statement On Biblical Inerrancy:

The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.

Further, Christians have held that without this "inner witness," correct interpretation is often impossible (1 Cor. 2:14).

KERRY NOTES:

And each and every single time we Mormons say this we are lambasted into a flaming hell and outer darkness for relying on such a "personal subjective and unscientific" guide. Whenever we use Mormoni 10:4-5, which teaches the EXACT same thing you are proclaiming, i.e. by the Holy Ghost ye shall know the truth of all things," we are simply laughed to scorn. If YOU can rely on the Holy Spirit (which I heartily suggest is the best guide) then so can WE (and lets have an end to the soucy insolence and demeaning merry making of Christians against us).

SRM NOTES:

(Kerry, quoting one of the Bible scholars) Moreover, the Bible contains different points of view and often contradictory understandings and formulations of the nature of God, and of our relationship with him and with other human beings. The Bible is not in any simple sense the word of God, but rather the words of Amos and Isaiah, of Luke and Paul. Now, quite frankly, all one has to do in order to see the truth of this is read the Bible. I believe this is an honest assessment of what the Bible is and isn't.

SRM FURTHER NOTES:

I wonder if a person would be considered a Mormon who held similar views about the Book of Mormon?

KERRY NOTES:

That various authors wrote the actual book and not God himself? I assure you, were you just barely read in the Book of Mormon and/or Mormonism, you would readily see for yourself that we believe that Nephi wrote the Book of Nephi, that Alma wrote Alma, etc., etc. Granted we also proclaim that God inspired them, but we hear from stringent Evangelical Christians that we blaspheme when we say anything other than God himself, none other, wrote the entire Bible. THAT is the issue I was taking to task, and rightfully so. I know of no bonafide Bible scholar who proclaims this weak and weird Christian claim. Can you find any for me? Even your quote below misses the point I am making. Apparently you cannot fathom what I am responding to, which may be my own fault, for which I apologize. I have had Christians damn me straight to dead hell, fire and brimstone for not believing that God himself and God alone wrote the Bible, and it is not a production of human hands. It is to that criticism I was responding, just to clarify.

SRM NOTES:

Again, from the Chicago Council:

Article V.

We affirm that God's revelation in the Holy Scriptures was progressive.

We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects of contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings.

That answers the "contradictory" part, and also mentions that no further revelation is acceptable, which answers the "Mormon" part.

KERRY NOTES:

And it is wrong on both counts. Just because it declares such does not mean it can justify the stance. Demonstrate with examples.

SRM NOTES:

Now, admittedly, the International Conference on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) represented the conservative wing of the current Christian Church, it's probably safe to say they held no more conservative views than what Mr. Shirts represents for LDS. Now, while Shirts intends to use the next part to further make his point against Christians, it actually backfires by pointing to his own admitted bias (I have been accused of having a Mormon bias and slant on understanding history, the Bible, God, etc...and I plead guilty).

KERRY NOTES:

And of course, it goes without saying that I am honestly open about it. Each and every individual ever born has biases and uses them whether consciously or unconsciously. My point is that it is useless to try and proclaim a phony objective approach, since such is virtually impossible. You yourselves are extremely bias against further revelation as you have noted.

SRM NOTES:

(Kerry quoting another scholar) Christians suffer from a serious ailment which comes from not understanding [sic] and the lack of reading seriously into his own religion, theology, history, and the Bible. Paul Watzlawick has said it best: "The belief that one's own view of reality is the only reality is the most dangerous of all delusions. It becomes still more dangerous if it is coupled with a missionary zeal to enlighten the rest of the world, whether the rest of the world wishes to be enlightened or not...to dare to see the world differently, can become a 'think-crime'..."

SRM FURTHER NOTES:

Have you ever heard a better description of the Mormon mind-set, then the quote by Mr. Watzlaick? Is there any group with a greater "missionary zeal to enlighten the world" then the Mormons?

KERRY NOTES:

Pot, kettle, black here. Are you honestly trying to convince us the above description cannot apply to you Christians?

SRM NOTES:

(Kerry says) Christians accuse Us Mormons of being deceptive in my research [sic].

KERRY NOTES:

Laugh! Well, true enough, I certainly didn’t write that one very good.

SRM NOTES:

They believe the Bible is perfect, and therefore, to say anything else about it (a think-crime) is bad, evil, an attack on the Bible, and Satanically ungodly. But just what are the facts concerning the Bible? Honestly? "the number of errors [in the Bible]...amounts to about 6,000! It is absurd to try to make this factual reality conform to the popular impression that the Bible,...is totally error-free because God personally not only rendered it originally in true form, but has, over the past few thousand years, personally seen to it that the Scriptures continue to be his personal word."

SRM FURTHER NOTES:

The above quote is by that "renowned" Bible scholar Steve Allen. I have never seen the "6,000" number before in relation to the Bible, but I do know there have been several thousand changes to the BOM that are factual, since the original edition (1830) is still available for comparison.

KERRY NOTES:

You mean I really am dealing with an ignoramus concerning the changes in the Bible and the thousands upon thousands of changes and differences between the thousands of Bible manuscripts? You have got to be kidding right? You have never heard of the thousands of changes in the Bible? Well, O.K., apparently I have to do your homework for you. I sincerely do hope you realize these are among the world’s finest Bible scholars I have found this information. Can you deal with the issues here instead of worrying whether they wear red or blue underwear or something else equally as irrelevant?

Raymond Brown in his nifty book "Responses to 101 Questions on the Bible" notes that the Gospels, the first 4 books of the New Testament were: "edited and *RESHAPED* by an evangelist in the last third of the first century in order to address the spiritual needs of Christian readers he envisaged." (p. 58, my emphasis). In other words, the Gospels are ***NOT PERFECT***, nor are they original, but have been REWRITTEN to match an already preconceived end.

James H. Charlesworth's fine article "From the Philopedia of Jesus to the Misopedia of the Acts of Thomas" in "By Study and Also By Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh Nibley, Vol. 1, notes that "Jesus' philopedia was SO ALTERED by some second-century Christian groups that it became misopedia. JESUS' OWN TEACHINGS WERE SOMETIMES CHANGED OR EVEN ABANDONED BY THOSE WHO CALLED HIM LORD." (p. 46, my emphasis).

Bruce M. Metzger, "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration" notes that "a group of correctors working at Caesarea entered a large number of alterations into the text of both Old and New Testaments." (p. 46).

""The whole of Matthew's Gospel as far as xxv, 6 is lost, as well as the leaves which originally contained John 6:50-58, 52, and 2 Cor. 4:13-xii, 6." (p. 46).

"Unfortunately the beauty of the original writing has been spoiled by a later corrector..." (p. 47).

"All known witnesses of the New Testament are to a greater or less extent mixed texts, and even the earliest manuscripts are not free from egregious errors..." (p. 246)

Eldon Jay Epp and Gordon D. Fee, "Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism," notes that

"There are places where the original text is not so certain..." (p. 16).

WITHOUT EXCEPTION, "all of the oldest Greek MSS had been corrupted by interpolation..." (p. 149).

"The great fault of contemporary NT textual criticism is that IT CANNOT offer us TOTAL CERTAINTY as to the ORIGINAL NT text." (p. 189, my emphasis).

Even after scribal errors have been eliminated, "there remains a text of outstanding (though not absolute) purity." (p. 128).

Bart D. Ehrman, "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture"

"scribes occassionally altered the words of their sacred texts to make them more patently orthodox and to prevent their misuse by Christians who espoused aberrant views." (p. xi).

"there scribes corrupted their texts for theological reasons..." (p. xii).

Scripture was changed to refute antiDocetic tendencies in early Christian circles (p. 217).

Stanley R. Maveety, "The Glossary in the Rheims New Testament of 1582", in the "Journal of English and Germanic Philology," Vol. 61, 1962,

"Tyndale was guilty of DELIBERATELY ***MISTRANSLATING*** the Bible in order to conform to Luther doctrine... (p. 566).

The Protestants were guilty of adding words to the scriptures in order to condemn Catholic doctrines (p. 572)

Emanuel Tov, "Textual Criticsm of the Hebrew Bible,"

The Masoretes had preserved a text in the Hebrew Bible, which had already been corrupted! (p. 9, 28ff).

Samaritans added their own theological biases to the scriptures (p. 19).

words were added that change the meaning of biblical passages (pp. 57, 63, 65, 60).

Theological concepts of God were ADDED to the scriptures (p. 127f).

There is a LARGE SCALE differences between the manuscript witnesses, not minor mere variations (p. 177).

Scribes took the liberty of changing the manuscripts as they felt suited to (p. 189)

Scribes deliberately altered the contents of the manuscripts and scriptures (pp. 258, 262, 306, 269, 290)

EVERY CHAPTER in the Bible has CHANGES! (p. 293f)

James A. Sanders article "Understanding the Development of the Biblical Text" in "The Dead Sea Scrolls After Forty Years", says that we ought to start acknowledging the differences in the Bible and quit pretending there are none, and that we ought to realize that there have been differences from the very start of the Bible! (p. 71).

Emanuel Tov, "The Corrections in the Biblical Texts", in "The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research", says there have been many different systems of scribal intervention and changing of the scripture! (pp. 300ff).

P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., "Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible",

"parablepsis...frequently resulted in an EXTENSIVE loss of material..." (p. 40ff).

Ronald S. Hendel, "When the Sons of God Cavorted With the Daughters of Men", in "Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls," shows how men have deliberately changed and tampered with the scripture text, altering its historical as well as theological ideas (pp. 170fff)

Frank Moore Cross, "The Text Behind the Text of the Hebrew Bible," "Ibid." notes how "the history of the text of the Hebrew Bible has been confused and obscured by an assumption, or rather a dogma, that the Hebrew text was unchanged and unchanging." (p. 143).

Leon Vaganay/Christian Bernard-Amphoux, "An Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism,"

"corrections were made boldly, things were added and things omitted..." (p. 57, 80, 81 - scribes felt free to modify texts to fit their own views of the scriptures!) (Now there are at least 12 major witnesses as to the corruptions in the Bible).

As I read it, this is ***NOT*** an attack on the Scriptures at all, but on a particular interpretation of what they are, i.e. Christian's understanding of the Bible. They will more than likely go on pontificating incorrectly that we are attacking the Bible. We are not. We ***ARE*** attacking false interpretations of what the Bible is however, and will continue to look for ***HONEST*** truth concerning what the Bible is and isn't.

A perfect Bible? Can an imperfect book be God's word? Of course, if humans have helped write, translate, transmit, and keep it. The Bible contains historical errors of all kinds.

SRM NOTES:

Once again, from the ICBI:

Article I.

We affirm that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God.

We deny that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source.

4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives

Of course, just saying the above, doesn't make it true. But for a person like Kerry Shirts, who has dedicated obviously much time and talent to defending the far less defensible (in our opinion) sacred Mormon scriptures, it is simply unfathomable that so many of Shirts' statements can be uttered without seeing the dual nature of the charges. Many of those he levels against Christians can simply be applied to his own religious worldview! For example, finding Mormons and ex-Mormons who have leveled serious scholarly attacks against Mormon scriptures is quite easy, and getting easier all the time. The fact that one can find similar assesments about the Bible from non-Christians, especially after 2000 years, is neither remarkable nor of much concern. The presuppositions that one brings to the table, pretty much determines the results.

KERRY NOTES:

Ah! THanks for noting that we all have our biases, as I already have said above. My point is not in finding Christians or Bible scholars to attack Christians and their beliefs. My whole point is that we Mormons are not singularly the only ones who have a realistic view of the human nature of the Bible (note I do not say uninspired at all, just human). For instance, who would honestly not understand that Paul wrote his letters himself, and not God from Heaven? Paul is the author of his letters. Refute that.

SRM NOTES:

(Kerry says) Some folks apparently don't understand that there were more gospels written than the four found in the New Testament. These extracanonical gospels are "dismissed as unimportant, on the hasty assumption that all of them were fanciful elaborations based on the New Testament gospels, or at least came from a much later period...Scholars now find it necessary to turn to the extracanonical gospels to learn about the development of even the earliest Jesus traditions. These texts disclose to us how Christian communities gathered, arranged, modified, embellished, interpreted, and created traditions about the teachings and deeds of Jesus...in earlier centuries many Christians had cherished other gospels, which they sincerely believed to carry the revealed truth about Jesus. It is only from the perspective of later centuries that these texts which nourished the faith of generations of Christians can be called non-canonical. The distinction between the canonical and non-canonical gospels did not exist in the period of Christian origins and therefore is not helpful for understanding the earliest centuries of Christianity in their rich diversity."

The above quote is from Robert J. Miller of the Jesus Seminar, a radical group of Bible scholars. (For two critiques of the JS, one by Craig Blomberg, click here, and by Birger A. Pearson, Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara, click here).

KERRY NOTES:

Agreed. It was a bad soucre. At last! You got a point! Congrats. Now then, James H. Charlesworth, who is NOT a radical Bible scholar, also notes the above information in the preface to his two volumes on the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha." My point is, the information shows that Christians have incorrectly claimed that the Bible alone is scripture. Clearly the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as the Book of Enoch refute this silly proposition. Anciently there WAS NO CANON until approximately 200-250 years after Jesus’ death.

SRM NOTES:

This is brought home very, very clearly in Carsten Peter Thiede's fun little study. Thiede notes that "Whatever the exact reconstruction of the earliest stages may be [of the written Gospels in the New Testament], we do know from the prologue to Luke's Gospel that there were more literary sources he could use than just the completed Gospels of Matthew and Mark: '*Many have undertaken to draw up an account* of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word." (Luke 1:1-2).8 In fact, Thiede has a chart wherein he compares four definitions of the New Testament, namely that of Marcion, The Canon Muratori, that of Eusebius, and Athanasius, none of them having the same collection of books as any of the others, showing how fluid the idea of a canon was in New Testament times.

An excellent book on this subject is The Making of the New Testament by Arthur G. Patzia, associate professor of New Testament and director of Fuller Theological Seminary in Northern California. For an online look at the making of the New Testament, click here. (At some future time, Solid Rock Ministries plans on producing its own in depth look at the formation of the New Testament). It seems likely that the Church accepted the basic NT around 200 A.D., with official "canonization" by the Council of Carthage in A.D. 397 (although Metzger has pointed out there wasn't unanimous agreement in all Christian communities even as late as the start of the fifth century). Some of the criteria that determined the cannon included apostolicity, orthodoxy, and catholicity.

KERRY NOTES:

Ah! Thank you, you actually have some sources indicated here. I’ll look into them. Now then, I also seriously suggest James H. Charlesworth, "Old Testament Pseudepigrapha," his introduction especially! And Bentley Layton’s outstanding excellent scholarly book "The Gnostic Scriptures," especially his introduction for the concepts of canon. I might also add Frank Moore Cross, "The Hebrew Bible within the Hebrew Bible," in Herschel Shanks, "Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls," to see that the canon process was not so much a spiritual process as a politically motivated agenda to stamp out rivals. There is nothing inspired about what was included in the Bible as scripture and what was excluded.

SRM NOTES:

(Kerry says) Carolyn Osiek [Professor of New Testament at Catholic Theological Union] has noted the seriousness with which many early Christian groups took the so-called Shephard of Hermas as scripture. "But it was considered canonical by the influential second-century church father Irenaeus. Tertullian, another prominent church father of the next generation, considered it scripture until his own theology changed and he disagreed with it. The great third-century theologian and compiler of the "Hexapla", Origen, highly revered it, as did many other Christian leaders." Yet it was not included in the New Testament, likely because it lacks a developed Christology.

SRM FURTHER NOTES:

The Shephard of Hermas was an early Christian work that was at one time read in the churches and has been found attached to some of the oldest New Testament Manuscripts. These include the Sinaiticus from the fourth century and the Claromontanus from the sixth. The Shephard of Hermas was not included in Vaticanus (fourth century) and Alexandrinus (fifth century). It was also not included in the very early Muratorian Fragment (200 A.D. Metzger), which includes 20 of the final 27 books of the New Testament. The reason the Shephard of Hermas was most likely not included in the final canon of scripture was that it lacked apostolic authorship (from the Muratorian Fragment).

KERRY NOTES:

Yes, my point is that there was not a singular condemnation of this work until later. Many early Christians accepted it as scripture. It was later Orthodoxy who, by their own circular reasoning, rejected the work. Of course! I seriously suggest Bentley Layton’s outstanding discussion in his book "The Gnostic Scriptures."

SRM NOTES

(Kerry says) Again, we note that Bible scholars realize there are problems with the Bible and the manuscripts. "No *original* biblical documents, such as Paul's letters, have survived...All we have are copies of copies of copies, and so forth. Because of mistakes in copying, later elaborations and even intentional alterations, surviving manuscripts contain numerous discrepancies..."

SRM FURTHER NOTES:

Around 95 percent of the variants in the New Testament are obvious unintentional errors. Because we do have so many fragments and manuscripts that have survived, most Biblical scholars believe an extremely accurate NT exists today.

KERRY NOTES:

And I don’t disagree with this at all. My whole point is that this also clearly shows that you Christians need to teach your own better. Some among you proclaim that the Bible is 100% PERFECT. THERE ARE NO ERRORS, etc. That is what we can both now agree is a worthless argument. The issue is NOT the accuracy of the Bible at this point. The issue is perfection. The Bible isn’t perfect, my case stands.

SRM NOTES:

In most cases, textual agreement between manuscripts of the Greek New Testament is closer than the verbal agreement of most English versions of the New Testament (Patzia).

KERRY NOTES:

Marvelous. I’m grateful for what we have, and grateful for more that is coming.....

SRM NOTES:

I once read of a college professor who hands to his students every semester several divergent copies of a purposely mistranslated piece of classical literature. The students then take the

KERRY NOTES:
Uh-oh. This is all I have, so with this I will end. Apparently I didn’t get the full response from you.