There was no Bible with both Old and New Testament in it. It wasn’t until several hundred years later that Christians of what would become the Catholic church decided what books should be included in a canon of scripture and which should be left out. So books like the Gospel of Mark and the Apocalypse of John made it while books like the Gospel of Thomas and the Apocalypse of Peter didn’t.

The writer of the Apocalypse of John or Revelation knew the only way to copy books was to write them by hand. He’s giving a warning to all those scribes who would make copies of his book not to make any changes to it. I find it sad how many people believe the Bible to be the word of God yet they don’t understand even the most basic things about how it even came to be.

4 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day’s journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.

10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

Jonah 3:4-10

This discussion has obviously fallen on deaf ears, so there’s no need to go back and forth until the sun stops shining. I hope and pray the Lord leads us all in the right direction.

“Peter makes it very clear that in order to maintain the purity of Holy God’s written word, the source of interpretation must be from the same pure source as the origin of the Scripture itself.”
Are you saying that without communication from God, not including “scripture” as that communication, there is no way to know for certain the correct interpretation of scripture?
-Just to be clear, this wasn’t my comment. However, I do agree. If you use scripture to interpret scripture, it will never contradict itself, nor ever return void, as the Lord states Himself in Isaiah 55:11.

“What I’m saying is what if some more scrolls, or perhaps metal plates, were found in the area around Jerusalem, and they were found to be legitimate, and in those records there was, let’s say, another “gospel” comparable to the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John but written by a fifth apostle, perhaps Peter. Would you accept those writings as scripture just as valid as the rest of the Bible, or would you reject them as being false because they’re not part of the Bible we have today?”
-If you read the commentary in the article, it’s all pointing to the book of revelation, and Christ’s resurrection. Nothing was mentioned about Joseph Smith or any comments made on the book of mormon. And if there was another gospel found, similar to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, I would not deem it as canonized scripture. As I’ve stated multiple times, if the Lord, who was the one who wrote the Bible, it being His very breath, wanted it in the scriptures, it would’ve been. But, since it’s not, then I wouldn’t count it as blasphemous or false, I just wouldn’t take it as God’s very Word.

erhaps I should clarify my definition of salvation, because it might differ slightly from yours. I don’t believe someone is saved until they’re judged, and I believe that generally only happens to people after they die. As long as we’re here on earth, we can go either way regardless of what good or ill we’ve done, with rare exceptions. And we believe men are judged, at least in part, based on their level of knowledge. We also believe there is a time in between death and the judgment when those who never heard the gospel here on earth have a chance to learn it. This is not a second chance, because they never had a first chance here on earth. So theoretically someone who has never heard of the Bible, Jesus Christ, or the Book of Mormon while alive, hears the gospel preached after they die, and they can choose to accept or reject it. In this way, people who lived before the Book of Mormon (or Bible, for that matter) can still be saved.”
-First of all, nobody is going to hear the book of mormon after they die. That’s silly. Second, we don’t get a second chance after we die. God shows us in scripture that He makes Himself known to everyone. In His creation His attributes are clearly seen, as stated in Romans 1:20, “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.”

“It’s not that people believe a false gospel, per se, it’s just that they only had part of the truth.”
-You guys need to start giving God more credit, seriously. He’s much smarter then humans, and He knows our hearts, that they are deceitfully wicked Jeremiah 17:9 “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” God can. And God does. Understanding that, He had to have had His hand in the entire dispersing of His Word through all the years, and through translation or one would have to believe that He trusted man, thus going against who He is. Again, He knows our hearts. He knows everything.

“And the book or mormon has absolutely no proof of archaeological evidence to back it”

“No proof, as such, but then again there are people who say the Bible is complete fiction and there is no archeological proof to back it up. I still believe the Bible is the word of God, but if you’re going to attack the Book of Mormon for a lack of archeological proof then watch your back because there are people doing the same to the Bible.”
-Your responses are funny because you essentially are disproving your faith. The book of mormon is full of unfulfilled prophecy. It’s full of a complete lack of archaeological evidence, which you just admitted. But, there is actual archaeological proof to back the Bible; tons of it. Just search it on google. And I’m not attacking anything, I’m presenting proof for the legitimacy of the Bible, and the lack of proof for the book of mormon.

“I admit, you won’t find absolute proof, but you’ll find that there are plenty of things we’re discovering these days in terms of archeology that match up with the Book of Mormon, and you have to ask yourself, is there any way a backwoods boy in the early 1800s with a 3rd grade education could have made this stuff up?”
-He copied lots of his “writings” or “revelations” from the KJV. So, if anything was to ever match up with anything in the book of mormon, it would be things copied from the KJV, not anything Joseph Smith wrote. And what it sounds like to the real Christian world is a false prophet lead by way of the devil to deceitfully stumble people, just as the Bible warns us repeatedly about.

“I guess you could look at all that and still say there’s no shred of evidence whatsoever, but I guess it all depends on your definition of evidence. What sort of evidence would it take to prove to you that the Book of Mormon is true?”
-It would take believable evidence. Not articles saying that some things sound kind of similar to the language used here and there, and this and that. There’s not authority in that evidence. Hence no circumstantial evidence, or more plainly put, no evidence whatsoever, which is what I’d like to see.

“Here’s a follow-up question to my earlier one of “How do you know the Bible is true?” You respond that “there is all kinds of fulfilled prophecy in the Bible, and tons of archaeological evidence to show proof, evidence, facts. The Bible is logical, factual, and true.” But there are people out there who have carefully examined each prophecy of the Bible and say that they are coincidences, or stretching the interpretation of the Bible. There are people who say there is no archeological evidence that the Bible is factual in every detail (for example, what archeological evidence is there of the virgin birth, Christ performing miracles, or the resurrection?). So, is your entire conviction that the Bible is true based on archeology, logic, and physical evidence, or in other words, upon science?”
-My conviction is one of a changed life in Christ Jesus, and Him alone being the way, the truth, and the life, as He Himself said. The fact that critics call prophesy coincidental makes sense because they don’t bow to God, they bow to the media. The media turns everything spiritual, or just things pertaining to God, into being coincidental because they don’t want to give Him any credit. If you believe in the Bible, then you should know this already. As far as people saying that it’s stretching the interpretation of the Bible, you should understand again that people that don’t glorify God are not going to give Him credit, but blame coincidence or say the interpretation’s wrong.

How could you prove to me that “this book” means the entire Bible? If it was stated in clear terms, for example, if a scripture in the Bible read “If any man shall add unto the Bible…” then I’d say you’ve got some good evidence for your case.

And none of the scriptures you cite definitively rule out the possibility of further scripture. For example, you quote Proverbs 30:5-6 as saying “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” but this only says that men are not supposed to make something up out of their own heads, and then say that God is the author of it. Joseph Smith never did this. Whenever he said “This is what God said…” it was really what God said. There is nothing in that scripture that rules out more scripture outside the Bible.

The real weakness of your approach is that none of the authors of the books of the Bible, as far as I know, show any awareness of the Bible, except Isaiah, but that’s another story. When the books of the Bible were written there was no “Bible”. These prophets and apostles weren’t writing stuff and thinking “Ok, this will be great when it’s added to the Bible.” There was no Bible. They didn’t know there ever would be a Bible. The Bible is merely what was created when someone said “Hey, we should gather up all these holy writings and put them in one book.” The people who did that were not prophets or apostles. They did not have all the writings of the prophets and apostles (as I already pointed out in an earlier response). We don’t know if the sources they used were accurate. But we do know that when the books were originally written, they were separate books, and if every prophet and apostle were aware that their writings would become part of the Bible someday, you would expect that one or more of them would have mentioned the Bible, you know, something to the effect of “One day in the future many of the writings of the prophets and apostles will be put into one great book that will bless the lives of millions and bring light to the world.”

“Peter makes it very clear that in order to maintain the purity of Holy God’s written word, the source of interpretation must be from the same pure source as the origin of the Scripture itself.”

Are you saying that without communication from God, not including “scripture” as that communication, there is no way to know for certain the correct interpretation of scripture?

“The idea that somehow sayings and events from the Lord have been recorded in tradition is simply not true.”

What I’m saying is what if some more scrolls, or perhaps metal plates, were found in the area around Jerusalem, and they were found to be legitimate, and in those records there was, let’s say, another “gospel” comparable to the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John but written by a fifth apostle, perhaps Peter. Would you accept those writings as scripture just as valid as the rest of the Bible, or would you reject them as being false because they’re not part of the Bible we have today?

“If mormons believe people were saved prior to the book of mormon, then what changed?”

Perhaps I should clarify my definition of salvation, because it might differ slightly from yours. I don’t believe someone is saved until they’re judged, and I believe that generally only happens to people after they die. As long as we’re here on earth, we can go either way regardless of what good or ill we’ve done, with rare exceptions. And we believe men are judged, at least in part, based on their level of knowledge. We also believe there is a time in between death and the judgment when those who never heard the gospel here on earth have a chance to learn it. This is not a second chance, because they never had a first chance here on earth. So theoretically someone who has never heard of the Bible, Jesus Christ, or the Book of Mormon while alive, hears the gospel preached after they die, and they can choose to accept or reject it. In this way, people who lived before the Book of Mormon (or Bible, for that matter) can still be saved.

“If the Word of God had been corrupted through translation, does that mean that anybody between the time of canonization of the Bible and the book of mormon believed a false gospel? And it wasn’t until the book of mormon and Joseph Smith that there was a clear interpretation?”

Mormons don’t think in terms of “true gospel” and “false gospel” so much as “some truth” and “more truth”. The Bible has a lot of truth in it. The Book of Mormon adds more truth, not only in that it is more scripture itself, but in that it clarifies many of the part of the Bible that people are generally confused about and so makes the Bible that much more valuable itself. It’s not that people believe a false gospel, per se, it’s just that they only had part of the truth. With the Book of Mormon they have more truth. Our attitude towards other faiths isn’t “Drop everything you believe and come get something entirely different and new,” rather it is “Bring all the good you have and let us add to it.”

“And the book or mormon has absolutely no proof of archaeological evidence to back it”

No proof, as such, but then again there are people who say the Bible is complete fiction and there is no archeological proof to back it up. I still believe the Bible is the word of God, but if you’re going to attack the Book of Mormon for a lack of archeological proof then watch your back because there are people doing the same to the Bible.

But there are some interesting archeological evidences corroborating the Book of Mormon narrative. Here are a few:

1. Ancient books on metal plates. When Joseph Smith talked about an ancient book written on metal plates, he was laughed at. Nobody had heard of such a thing. For decades he was ridiculed because everyone knew that nobody had ever used metal plates anciently. But today, ancient records have been found on metal plates, indeed very close to Jerusalem. See Seventy metal books found in cave in Jordan.

Actually, let’s not reinvent the wheel. Just go check out this website and let me know if you think there is “absolutely no archeological evidence”. I admit, you won’t find absolute proof, but you’ll find that there are plenty of things we’re discovering these days in terms of archeology that match up with the Book of Mormon, and you have to ask yourself, is there any way a backwoods boy in the early 1800s with a 3rd grade education could have made this stuff up?

One that is particularly interesting to me is the part on weights and measures of the Book of Mormon, because I went to Guatemala and saw them using a system of weights and measures in a small marketplace that conformed exactly to what is described in the Book of Mormon. Coincidence? Perhaps, but quite interesting.

And actually, you yourself are a fulfilling one of the prophecies of the Book of Mormon. In 2 Nephi 29:3 it reads “…many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.” Wouldn’t you say that’s a pretty accurate description of your side of the discussion we’ve been having?

I guess you could look at all that and still say there’s no shred of evidence whatsoever, but I guess it all depends on your definition of evidence. What sort of evidence would it take to prove to you that the Book of Mormon is true?

Here’s a follow-up question to my earlier one of “How do you know the Bible is true?” You respond that “there is all kinds of fulfilled prophecy in the Bible, and tons of archaeological evidence to show proof, evidence, facts. The Bible is logical, factual, and true.” But there are people out there who have carefully examined each prophecy of the Bible and say that they are coincidences, or stretching the interpretation of the Bible. There are people who say there is no archeological evidence that the Bible is factual in every detail (for example, what archeological evidence is there of the virgin birth, Christ performing miracles, or the resurrection?). So, is your entire conviction that the Bible is true based on archeology, logic, and physical evidence, or in other words, upon science?