A long time ago, I read a book called The Gentile Times Reconsidered by Carl Olof Jonsson. It was about how Biblical, archaeological, and astronomical evidence pointed to 587 BCE as the date for the destruction of the Jewish temple rather than 607 BCE, which is when the Jehovah's Witnesses date it. The book pointed out many problems with Jehovah's Witness chronology.
The BOM also has a specific chronology, so I was curious how it would work out. The BOM repeatedly says that Jesus will be born 600 years after Lehi left Jerusalem (1 Nephi 10:4, 2 Nephi 25:19, etc.). Lehi left Jerusalem in the first year of the reign of Zedekiah (1 Nephi 1:4, 1 Nephi 2:2-4, etc.). That means Jesus should be born 600 years after the 1st year of Zedekiah.
The Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in the 11th year of Zedekiah, which was the 19th year of Nebachadnezzar (2 Kings 24-25; 2 Chronicles 36; Jeremiah 39; Jeremiah 52). That happened in 587 BCE, which means that Lehi left Jermusalem in 598 BCE.
If Lehi left Jerusalem in 598 BCE, that means Jesus was born in 3 CE.
But the problem is that according to Matthew 2, King Herod was still alive when Jesus was born. Herod died in 4 BCE, which means Jesus had to have been born in 4 BCE or earlier.
It seems like the only way to make the BOM chronology work is to argue for a different date than 587 BCE for the destruction of the temple, but that date is supported by some pretty strong evidence, which you can read about in Carl O. Jonsson's book. Another way would be to argue for a different date for King Herod's death. I've read (I can't remember where) that some people date Herod's death as late as 1 BCE, but there seems to be a strong consensus in favour of the 4 BCE date.
The footnotes in my copy of the BOM say that Lehi left Jerusalem in 600 BCE, and that Jesus was born in 1 CE. That would put the destruction of the Temple in 589 BCE, and the death of Herod no earlier than 1 CE.
I brought this up in the comment section of this blog and Kevin Winters directed me to a FARMS article called "The Jewish/Nephite Lunar Calender," by Randall P. Spackman, which addressed the points I raised. The rest of what follows is just cut and paste from my response to the article.
The article was actually kind of surprising to me because in the end, the author claimed to have solved one problem, but in doing so, created another--the problem of whether Lehi left Jerusalem in the 1st year of Zedekiah, as Mormon said in the heading of 3 Nephi, or whether he left between 588 and 587 BCE, as the author argued (being the 10th or 11th year of Zedekiah). To deal with THAT problem, the author quoted the preface to the BOM, which says, "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ."
That is a really interesting response. It sounds like the author is saying in that section that Mormon made a mistake. There's a contradiction in the BOM about when Lehi left Jerusalem. But if that's the case, then why go through this long explanation, trying to reconcile the 600 year prophecy? Why not just begin with this claim about human error and avoid the whole thing?
This "human error" solution creates another problem, too. The introduction of the BOM quotes Joseph Smith as saying that "the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth." If the BOM is fallible, then there isn't an infallible book on earth--neither the Bible nor the BOM. We might as well give up worrying about contradictions and chalk them up to human error.
[I discovered later that Mormons do not subscribe to inerrancy, neither for the Bible, nor for the Book of Mormon. Mormon 8:12 says, "And whoso receiveth this record, and shall not condemn it because of the imperfections which are in it, the same shall know of greater things than these."]
I admit that the author's solution works. I did the math, and, indeed, 600 lunar years (without adding a 13th month every three or so years) is equal to about 582 solar years, so 600 lunar years before 5 BC is 587 BC.
But I am highly skeptical that if this story were true, the Nephites, out of ignorance, would've failed to add the 13th month every 3 or so years. After all, they had every reason the Mesoamericans, Hebrews, and Egyptians had to notice a problem--harvests and festivals, especially. And living in the Hebrew/Egyptian world for much longer than 3 years before leaving like they did, and being acquainted with their calender, surely they would've known about the 13th month.
But if that's the case, then why not just say these are "the mistakes of men" and live with it?
Part 7
Monday, June 15, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
The Book of Mormon 5/18
The first thing that jumped out at me last August when I began to read the BOM was that the characters, who were supposedly Jews, did not have a Jewish worldview.
According to the BOM, there's a fellow named Lehi who took his family and left Jerusalem in the first year of Zedekiah and left for America. That was eleven years before the third exile and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, which means Lehi left Jerusalem in 598 BCE. They wandered in the wilderness for eight years, and then built a boat and sailed for America.
"Us" vs. "Them"
In the beginning of the story, while Lehi is prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem, Nephi (the son of Lehi, and the author of 1 Nephi) keeps referring to "the Jews" as "they." In 2 Nephi 29:13, the author distinguishes between the Nephites, the Jews, and the lost tribes of Israel.
After Jesus ascended in the book of Acts, he appeared in America where he chose 12 more disciples. That's the background of this prophecy:
The promised land
Part of the worldview of Judaism included the promises God gave Abraham that his children would possess the land, and the story of how God delivered the people of Israel from Egypt and brought them into the promised land. It was a land they were promised forever. This worldview affected how they interpreted later historical events. First, the Assyrians scattered the northern kingdom of Israel in 722 BCE, leaving only the kingdom of Judah in the south. Few of them ever returned. Then the Babylonians exiled the Jews in three stages culminating in the destruction of the temple and the final exile in 587 BCE. Since that time, the prophets predicted there would be a return from exile that would even include the reunion of Judah and Israel. The whole house of Israel would be able to return from exile and reestablish their national sovereignty. This worldview is what drove the Jews to despair the whole time they were in vassalage to other nations, and it explains why they fought so hard in the Maccabean revolt and the two revolts against Rome to reestablish their national sovereignty.
In the BOM, it talks about the people of Lehi being rescued from Jerusalem in much the same way the Bible talks about the Hebrews being rescued from Egypt. And it talks about wandering in the wilderness for eight years in the same way the Hebrews wandered in the wilderness for forty years. And it talks about the people of Lehi crossing the Atlantic ocean to enter the promised land, which is America, in the same way the Bible talks about the Hebrews crossing the Jordan to enter the promised land, which is Palestine.
If the people in the BOM were really Jews, surely they would've thought they were being exiled from the promised land. And they would've thought God would eventually return them to the land of Israel. But instead, it says:
When Jesus visits America, he tells the people that with the help of the Gentiles, they will build a New Jerusalem in America, and all those who had been scattered by the Gentiles will be gathered into the New Jerusalem (3 Nephi 21:32-24). There is also a New Jerusalem that will come down out of heaven in America (Ether 13:3). The old Jerusalem will also be rebuilt as a holy city, but "it could not be a new Jerusalem for it had been in a time of old" (Ether 13:5). So Israel would be forever split in two.
The law of Moses
There is no veneration of the Mosaic law among the people of the BOM like you see in the Bible. While they spent eight years in the wilderness near the Red Sea, there's no indication that anybody even thought about whether they should go to Jerusalem for any of the pilgrimage festivals, there's no indication that they kept any of the Jewish holidays, and the Sabbath is rarely mentioned. It does say a few times that the people of Nephi kept the law of Moses, but instead of expressing a love for the law like you see in the Old Testament, the BOM talks about the law as if it was just a temporary inconvenience that would be done away with once Christ arrived. For example, several hundred years before Christ, Nephi wrote:
The temple
In Judaism, there has only ever been one temple or tabernacle at a time. It represented God's dwelling place and his presence among Israel. Priests offered sacrifices on behalf of the people. Jews traveled to Jerusalem on special occasions to offer those sacrifices. The building of the temple was a big deal. David had wanted to do it, but God wouldn't let him. Instead, God said that Solomon would build the temple. Jews in the diaspora never built new temples; they built synagogues.
In the BOM, it says that Nephi built a temple "after the manner of the temple of Solomon" (2 Nephi 5:16). The building of Nephi's temple takes all of one verse to narrate. There's no discussion about God telling Nephi to build the temple or Nephi feeling the need to ask God for such a privilege. There's no discussion of how the temple was dedicated or of its function. But what seems even more odd is that there was no legitimate priesthood to officiate in the temple. In the Bible, there are very strict rules about who can enter the Holy of holies, who can offer sacrifices, the garments they have to wear, etc. The priests were among the sons of Aaron and the tribe of Levi. Lehi's people were from the tribe of Joseph and had no priesthood authority.
According to the footnote in my copy of the BOM, all of this happened between 588 and 570 BCE. The temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE, so perhaps there were not two temples at the same time. But eventually, the temple in Jerusalem was rebuilt, so surely there were two temples at one time. There's no indication in the BOM that this would've been a problem. But for somebody with a Jewish worldview, surely something would've seemed awry.
The Messiah
[There is more on the subject in the comment section of Response to a Jew with a View. Some of my comments here were cut and paste from what I wrote there.]
The BOM talks quite a bit more about Jesus Christ than the Old Testament does, and it is quite a bit more explicit than the Old Testament is. In fact, the parts of the BOM that were supposedly written before Jesus arrived seemed to have a fully developed New Testament theology.
But I don't get the impression that the author(s) of the BOM understood what a Jewish messiah was. (I wish I had taken better notes on this subject when I read the BOM so I could demonstrate the point, but I remember that was the impression I had when I read it.) The eschatological messiah in Judaism is a fulfillment of a promise God made concerning the throne of David.
But there's no indication that the author(s) of the BOM understood why the messiah had to be from the line of David or that the messiah would be a king, which is striking when you consider how much more there is about the messiah in the BOM than there is in the Old Testament. And considering the fact that Lehi left Jerusalem while Zedekiah was still king, it is conspicuous that among all the discussion of the eschatological messiah in the BOM, there seems to be no question or even curiosity about what became of David's dynasty. Here are some of the BOM's messianic prophecies:
For all these reasons, I seriously doubt that the author(s) of the BOM really were Jews. But it would not be surprising if this story was written by somebody in the 19th century who had a Christian upbringing.
Part 6
According to the BOM, there's a fellow named Lehi who took his family and left Jerusalem in the first year of Zedekiah and left for America. That was eleven years before the third exile and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, which means Lehi left Jerusalem in 598 BCE. They wandered in the wilderness for eight years, and then built a boat and sailed for America.
"Us" vs. "Them"
In the beginning of the story, while Lehi is prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem, Nephi (the son of Lehi, and the author of 1 Nephi) keeps referring to "the Jews" as "they." In 2 Nephi 29:13, the author distinguishes between the Nephites, the Jews, and the lost tribes of Israel.
After Jesus ascended in the book of Acts, he appeared in America where he chose 12 more disciples. That's the background of this prophecy:
Yea, behold, I write unto all the ends of the earth; yea, unto you, twelve tribes of Israel, who shall be judged according to your works by the twelve whom Jesus chose to be his disciples in the land of Jerusalem. And I write also unto the remnant of this people, who shall also be judged by the twelve whom Jesus chose in this land; and they shall be judged by the other twelve whom Jesus chose in the land of Jerusalem. (Mormon 3:18-19)Notice how "the remnant of this people" are distinguished from the twelve tribes of Israel.
The promised land
Part of the worldview of Judaism included the promises God gave Abraham that his children would possess the land, and the story of how God delivered the people of Israel from Egypt and brought them into the promised land. It was a land they were promised forever. This worldview affected how they interpreted later historical events. First, the Assyrians scattered the northern kingdom of Israel in 722 BCE, leaving only the kingdom of Judah in the south. Few of them ever returned. Then the Babylonians exiled the Jews in three stages culminating in the destruction of the temple and the final exile in 587 BCE. Since that time, the prophets predicted there would be a return from exile that would even include the reunion of Judah and Israel. The whole house of Israel would be able to return from exile and reestablish their national sovereignty. This worldview is what drove the Jews to despair the whole time they were in vassalage to other nations, and it explains why they fought so hard in the Maccabean revolt and the two revolts against Rome to reestablish their national sovereignty.
In the BOM, it talks about the people of Lehi being rescued from Jerusalem in much the same way the Bible talks about the Hebrews being rescued from Egypt. And it talks about wandering in the wilderness for eight years in the same way the Hebrews wandered in the wilderness for forty years. And it talks about the people of Lehi crossing the Atlantic ocean to enter the promised land, which is America, in the same way the Bible talks about the Hebrews crossing the Jordan to enter the promised land, which is Palestine.
Yea, and the Lord said also that: After ye have arrived in the promised land, ye shall know that I, the Lord, am God; and that I, the Lord, did deliver you from destruction; yea, that I did bring you out of the land of Jerusalem. (Nephi 17:14)While the themes are certainly similar, something is terribly awry.
If the people in the BOM were really Jews, surely they would've thought they were being exiled from the promised land. And they would've thought God would eventually return them to the land of Israel. But instead, it says:
Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land [America]; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever. (2 Nephi 1:9)Somebody with a Jewish worldview would've interpreted such a statements as a promise to be banished from the real promised land (i.e. the land promised to Abraham's seed) forever, and ironically, to be banished from the real promised land because of their faithfulness to God's commandments! A real Jew would've seen these supposed promises to Lehi to actually be broken promises since God had promised the land of Israel to Abraham's seed forever, and to always return the people of Israel to that land in fulfillment of his promises and in answer to their obedience.
When Jesus visits America, he tells the people that with the help of the Gentiles, they will build a New Jerusalem in America, and all those who had been scattered by the Gentiles will be gathered into the New Jerusalem (3 Nephi 21:32-24). There is also a New Jerusalem that will come down out of heaven in America (Ether 13:3). The old Jerusalem will also be rebuilt as a holy city, but "it could not be a new Jerusalem for it had been in a time of old" (Ether 13:5). So Israel would be forever split in two.
The law of Moses
There is no veneration of the Mosaic law among the people of the BOM like you see in the Bible. While they spent eight years in the wilderness near the Red Sea, there's no indication that anybody even thought about whether they should go to Jerusalem for any of the pilgrimage festivals, there's no indication that they kept any of the Jewish holidays, and the Sabbath is rarely mentioned. It does say a few times that the people of Nephi kept the law of Moses, but instead of expressing a love for the law like you see in the Old Testament, the BOM talks about the law as if it was just a temporary inconvenience that would be done away with once Christ arrived. For example, several hundred years before Christ, Nephi wrote:
And, notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we keep the law of Moses, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until the law shall be fulfilled. For, for this end was the law given; wherefore the law hath become dead unto us, and we are made alive in Christ because of our faith; yet we keep the law because of the commandments...Wherefore, we speak concerning the law that our children may know the deadness of the law; and they by knowing the deadness of the law, may look forward unto that life which is in Christ, and know for what end the law was given. And after the law is fulfilled in Christ that they need not harden their hearts against him when the law ought to be done away. (2 Nephi 25:24-27)
The temple
In Judaism, there has only ever been one temple or tabernacle at a time. It represented God's dwelling place and his presence among Israel. Priests offered sacrifices on behalf of the people. Jews traveled to Jerusalem on special occasions to offer those sacrifices. The building of the temple was a big deal. David had wanted to do it, but God wouldn't let him. Instead, God said that Solomon would build the temple. Jews in the diaspora never built new temples; they built synagogues.
In the BOM, it says that Nephi built a temple "after the manner of the temple of Solomon" (2 Nephi 5:16). The building of Nephi's temple takes all of one verse to narrate. There's no discussion about God telling Nephi to build the temple or Nephi feeling the need to ask God for such a privilege. There's no discussion of how the temple was dedicated or of its function. But what seems even more odd is that there was no legitimate priesthood to officiate in the temple. In the Bible, there are very strict rules about who can enter the Holy of holies, who can offer sacrifices, the garments they have to wear, etc. The priests were among the sons of Aaron and the tribe of Levi. Lehi's people were from the tribe of Joseph and had no priesthood authority.
According to the footnote in my copy of the BOM, all of this happened between 588 and 570 BCE. The temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE, so perhaps there were not two temples at the same time. But eventually, the temple in Jerusalem was rebuilt, so surely there were two temples at one time. There's no indication in the BOM that this would've been a problem. But for somebody with a Jewish worldview, surely something would've seemed awry.
The Messiah
[There is more on the subject in the comment section of Response to a Jew with a View. Some of my comments here were cut and paste from what I wrote there.]
The BOM talks quite a bit more about Jesus Christ than the Old Testament does, and it is quite a bit more explicit than the Old Testament is. In fact, the parts of the BOM that were supposedly written before Jesus arrived seemed to have a fully developed New Testament theology.
But I don't get the impression that the author(s) of the BOM understood what a Jewish messiah was. (I wish I had taken better notes on this subject when I read the BOM so I could demonstrate the point, but I remember that was the impression I had when I read it.) The eschatological messiah in Judaism is a fulfillment of a promise God made concerning the throne of David.
Your [David’s] house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me; your throne shall be established forever. (2 Samuel 7:16)David’s dynasty came to an end as a result of the Babylonian exile, but the prophets said God would fulfill his promise by raising up a descendant of David who would reestablish his throne and rule forever.
But King Solomon shall be blessed, and the throne of David shall be established before the LORD forever. (1 Kings 2:45)
There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness from then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this. (Isaiah 9:7)In 1 Kings 2:4 and 8:25, it says that David “shall not lack a man to sit on the throne of Israel,” as long as his sons are obedient. The messianic prophecy in Jeremiah 33:14-22 is explained as a fulfillment of that promise.
They will live on the land that I gave to Jacob My servant, in which your fathers lived; and they will live on it, they, and their sons and their sons' sons, forever; and David My servant will be their prince forever. (Ezekiel 37:25)
But there's no indication that the author(s) of the BOM understood why the messiah had to be from the line of David or that the messiah would be a king, which is striking when you consider how much more there is about the messiah in the BOM than there is in the Old Testament. And considering the fact that Lehi left Jerusalem while Zedekiah was still king, it is conspicuous that among all the discussion of the eschatological messiah in the BOM, there seems to be no question or even curiosity about what became of David's dynasty. Here are some of the BOM's messianic prophecies:
Yeah, even six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem, a prophet would the Lord God raise up among the Jews--even a Messiah, or, in other words, a Savior of the world. (1 Nephi 10:4)Apparently from this verse, the author thought "messiah" was just another way of saying "savior of the world." Granted, Christians do believe Jesus is the savior of the world, but that is not what "messiah" means.
Wherefore, as I said unto you, it must needs be expedient that Christ--for in the last night the angel spake unto me that this should be his name--should come among the Jews. (2 Nephi 10:3)Here's, it's evident that the author thought "Christ" was just a name. There is another curious reference in this same chapter to the same effect. See if you notice anything odd about this next part:
For according to the words of the prophets, the Messiah cometh six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem; and according to the words of the prophets, and also the word of the angel of God, his name shall be Jesus Christ, the Son of God. (2 Nephi 10:19)The odd thing about this verse is that the author appears to think "messiah" is a title, whereas "Jesus Christ" is a proper name. It is strange that the translation of the BOM would make such a distinction between "messiah" and "christ," since both mean the same thing. "Messiah" is derived from the Hebrew word for "anointed one," and "christ" is derived from the Greek word for "anointed one." It makes you wonder what the original language of the BOM actually said and whether it made such a distinction. Of course this is just one thing that makes me doubt the BOM is a translation at all, but that is a topic for another blog entry.
For all these reasons, I seriously doubt that the author(s) of the BOM really were Jews. But it would not be surprising if this story was written by somebody in the 19th century who had a Christian upbringing.
Part 6
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
The Book of Mormon 4/18
Mormons often ask me how I feel when I read the BOM. I find that a little frustrating because it doesn't matter how I feel when I read it. It only matters whether it's true. I don't think you can tell whether it's true by how you feel when you read it, so it doesn't matter how you feel. I wrote more about that in my series on Mormon epistemology.
I don't mind saying how I felt, though. When I was first visited by the Mormons over ten years ago, I prayed about the BOM like they asked me to, and all I felt was a foreboding. It was the same foreboding I felt before I prayed about it, though. Now I don't attribute this foreboding to the Holy Spirit. I attribute it to the fact that I already had serious doubts about it. But I didn't read the whole BOM back then. I only read the passages the missionaries gave me to read.
Last August, I read the whole BOM. When I met with Kay's bishop later on, he asked me how I felt when I read it. I told him I couldn't remember since I wasn't really thinking about my feelings when I was reading it.
But reading the BOM caused me to have far more doubts about it than I had before I read it. So I don't feel very good about the BOM at all now.
The BOM is much better when read cover to cover. What kept me from reading it before was pure boredom and lack of interest. But I was only reading isolated passages. I couldn't possibly see how it all fit into the story. The BOM isn't like the Bible where you have a collection of independent books from different genres. The BOM is more like a novel. You can read it from cover to cover, and it's just one long story. I think that's the way it ought to be read, at least the first time you read it. Then you can go back and read passages over again and know how they fit in the broader story.
Part 5
I don't mind saying how I felt, though. When I was first visited by the Mormons over ten years ago, I prayed about the BOM like they asked me to, and all I felt was a foreboding. It was the same foreboding I felt before I prayed about it, though. Now I don't attribute this foreboding to the Holy Spirit. I attribute it to the fact that I already had serious doubts about it. But I didn't read the whole BOM back then. I only read the passages the missionaries gave me to read.
Last August, I read the whole BOM. When I met with Kay's bishop later on, he asked me how I felt when I read it. I told him I couldn't remember since I wasn't really thinking about my feelings when I was reading it.
But reading the BOM caused me to have far more doubts about it than I had before I read it. So I don't feel very good about the BOM at all now.
The BOM is much better when read cover to cover. What kept me from reading it before was pure boredom and lack of interest. But I was only reading isolated passages. I couldn't possibly see how it all fit into the story. The BOM isn't like the Bible where you have a collection of independent books from different genres. The BOM is more like a novel. You can read it from cover to cover, and it's just one long story. I think that's the way it ought to be read, at least the first time you read it. Then you can go back and read passages over again and know how they fit in the broader story.
Part 5
Saturday, June 06, 2009
The Book of Mormon 3/18
Before I read the BOM, I read the introductory pages. There's an abridged version of Joseph Smith's story there. Then it says, "For the complete record, see Joseph Smith--History, in the Pearl of Great Price, and History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, volume 1, chapters 1 through 6.
I'm going to abridge the abridgment for you. In 1823, an angel named Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith and told him about a book written on golden plates that he would show Joseph at a later date, and there was a seer stone with the book that would allow Joseph to translate the book. But Joseph was not allowed to show the book to anybody except who he was commanded to or else he would be destroyed.
Moroni appeared to Joseph again, told him to tell his dad what had happened, and Joseph's dad told him it was from God. This time, Joseph went to find the plates. He said, "Covenient to the village of Manchester, Ontario county, New York, stands a hill of considerable size, and the most elevated of any in the neighborhood. On the west side of this hill, not far from the top, under a stone of considerable size, lay the plates, deposited in a stone box." The seer stones, a breastplate, and the golden plates were in the stone box, but Moroni wouldn't let Joseph have them for four more years. But Joseph went there once a year and met with Moroni until then.
Joseph finally got the plates on September 22, 1827, and Moroni told him to protect them until Moroni came back for them. Apparently, lots of people tried unsuccessfully to get them from Joseph, but Joseph was successful in protecting them. Then, once they were translated as The Book of Mormon, Moroni took them away.
In the case of the Bible, there are thousands of fragments of ancient manuscripts. It boggles the mind to think how many copies there must've been for so many thousands of them to have survived for so long. Surely, most of them have not survived.
But with the BOM, there isn't one single shred of manuscript evidence anywhere. The only one that supposedly existed was taken away by an angel. I'm sure there's an explanation for it, but this story just makes me suspicious. Joseph Smith finds some golden plates with ancient writings on them, only lets a handful of people see them (and it's ambiguous whether anybody actually saw them), and then they are taken away to heaven so nobody else can ever examine them. Wouldn't it be great if we could examine them? That is, if they ever existed, which I doubt. I can't prove it, but I suspect this story of an angel taking them away is just a cover up. It is most unfortunate. If they existed, they could possibly vindicate Joseph Smith and the LDS Church. Or they could falsify Joseph Smith and the LDS Church.
Part 4
I'm going to abridge the abridgment for you. In 1823, an angel named Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith and told him about a book written on golden plates that he would show Joseph at a later date, and there was a seer stone with the book that would allow Joseph to translate the book. But Joseph was not allowed to show the book to anybody except who he was commanded to or else he would be destroyed.
Moroni appeared to Joseph again, told him to tell his dad what had happened, and Joseph's dad told him it was from God. This time, Joseph went to find the plates. He said, "Covenient to the village of Manchester, Ontario county, New York, stands a hill of considerable size, and the most elevated of any in the neighborhood. On the west side of this hill, not far from the top, under a stone of considerable size, lay the plates, deposited in a stone box." The seer stones, a breastplate, and the golden plates were in the stone box, but Moroni wouldn't let Joseph have them for four more years. But Joseph went there once a year and met with Moroni until then.
Joseph finally got the plates on September 22, 1827, and Moroni told him to protect them until Moroni came back for them. Apparently, lots of people tried unsuccessfully to get them from Joseph, but Joseph was successful in protecting them. Then, once they were translated as The Book of Mormon, Moroni took them away.
In the case of the Bible, there are thousands of fragments of ancient manuscripts. It boggles the mind to think how many copies there must've been for so many thousands of them to have survived for so long. Surely, most of them have not survived.
But with the BOM, there isn't one single shred of manuscript evidence anywhere. The only one that supposedly existed was taken away by an angel. I'm sure there's an explanation for it, but this story just makes me suspicious. Joseph Smith finds some golden plates with ancient writings on them, only lets a handful of people see them (and it's ambiguous whether anybody actually saw them), and then they are taken away to heaven so nobody else can ever examine them. Wouldn't it be great if we could examine them? That is, if they ever existed, which I doubt. I can't prove it, but I suspect this story of an angel taking them away is just a cover up. It is most unfortunate. If they existed, they could possibly vindicate Joseph Smith and the LDS Church. Or they could falsify Joseph Smith and the LDS Church.
Part 4
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
The Book of Mormon 2/18
I might as well go back to before I read the Book of Mormon (hereafter BOM). I got my first copy of the BOM in August of 1996. I know that because the friend who gave it to me wrote a dedication on the inside of it:
The first thing I noticed about the BOM was that it imitated the King James Version. It was not written in modern English, which made me suspicious. The King James Version had been the most widely read translation of the Bible for a few hundred years, so it would make sense that if you're going to try to pass off your writing as scripture that you might want to immitate what was already widely accepted as scripture. Putting it in Elizabethan English might give it an illusion of authenticity. But if it were translated by the power of God, then such pretensions would be unnecessary. God would speak in the language of the people he was talking to just as he did in the Bible. I asked the Mormon missionaries why it was in King James English, and they said it was for the sake of formality, or something like that.
My impression since then has not changed. I don't think the style of the BOM proves it is a fake, but it does make me suspicious. My suspicions have been heightened by my discovery that the original 1830 publication of the BOM had some grammatical errors that are not at all surprising under the assumption that the BOM was written (not translated) in the 1800's, but that would be surprising if the BOM was translated the way it supposedly was.
Lemme say something about that "supposedly was." There is no official Mormon position on exactly how Joseph Smith translated the BOM, but according to David Whitmer, it was translated like so:
Now I suppose a Mormon might say that grammatical mistakes are no indication that it was not translated by the power of God since perhaps grammar was not standardized among the early Mormons, and God was simply writing in their language. But if that's the case, we shouldn't expect it to be in King James English either. You see, that's the thing. There's an inconsistency. Was the Book of Mormon translated in 19th century backwoods language, or was it translated in 15th century King James language? Both, apparently. Though not a solid proof, I suspect the best explanation is that a 19th century author was simply making an imperfect attempt to imitate the language of the Bible, and he lapsed sometimes into his own vernacular.
You can use google to find a list of the grammatical changes made between the original 1830 edition of the BOM and subsequent editions, but I'll provide you with a few examples along with a link to a scanned copy of the 1830 edition so you can see for yourself.
Alma 23:7
"...they did not fight against God no more." --1830 edition
"...they did not fight against God any more." --1981 edition
3 Nephi 3:5
"Therefore, I have wrote this epistle, sealing it with mine own hand..." --1830 edition
"Therefore, I have written this epistle, sealing it with mine own hand..." --1981 edition
Alma 43:7
"Now this he done that he might preserve their hatred towards the Nephites." --1830 edition
"Now this he did that he might preserve their hatred towards the Nephites." --1981 edition
These same kinds of mistakes are found throughout the the BOM. The longest list I've been able to find through Google is here. Given the URL, it's obviously an anti-Mormon site, but you can easily check them out by looking up the references here and see it in a scanned copy of the 1830 edition. I've looked up a few on that page, and so far they all check out.
One last thing before moving on. If David Whitmer's account of how the BOM came to be is accurate, then that throws the whole enterprise into question, I would think. If it's true, then the golden plates were not consulted at all during the production of the BOM. They might as well have been left in the hills. How can anybody be sure that the BOM is a translation of those plates? What role did the plates play in anything? It seems to me that Joseph Smith himself ought to have had some questions about it.
Part 3
To Sam HarperHe sent this to me after I had written him a letter telling him I had been visiting with some Mormon missionaries. The missionaries gave me references to read, which I did, but I didn't read the whole book at the time.
I hope this book brings you light and happiness.
Ryan Byrd
August 96'
The first thing I noticed about the BOM was that it imitated the King James Version. It was not written in modern English, which made me suspicious. The King James Version had been the most widely read translation of the Bible for a few hundred years, so it would make sense that if you're going to try to pass off your writing as scripture that you might want to immitate what was already widely accepted as scripture. Putting it in Elizabethan English might give it an illusion of authenticity. But if it were translated by the power of God, then such pretensions would be unnecessary. God would speak in the language of the people he was talking to just as he did in the Bible. I asked the Mormon missionaries why it was in King James English, and they said it was for the sake of formality, or something like that.
My impression since then has not changed. I don't think the style of the BOM proves it is a fake, but it does make me suspicious. My suspicions have been heightened by my discovery that the original 1830 publication of the BOM had some grammatical errors that are not at all surprising under the assumption that the BOM was written (not translated) in the 1800's, but that would be surprising if the BOM was translated the way it supposedly was.
Lemme say something about that "supposedly was." There is no official Mormon position on exactly how Joseph Smith translated the BOM, but according to David Whitmer, it was translated like so:
Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling a parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. (Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Missouri, 1887, p. 12)David Whitmer was one of the three witnesses who in the introductory pages of the BOM signed a statement saying they had seen the plates (or a vision of the plates, depending on how you interpret it) and that they "had been translated by the gift and power of God."
Now I suppose a Mormon might say that grammatical mistakes are no indication that it was not translated by the power of God since perhaps grammar was not standardized among the early Mormons, and God was simply writing in their language. But if that's the case, we shouldn't expect it to be in King James English either. You see, that's the thing. There's an inconsistency. Was the Book of Mormon translated in 19th century backwoods language, or was it translated in 15th century King James language? Both, apparently. Though not a solid proof, I suspect the best explanation is that a 19th century author was simply making an imperfect attempt to imitate the language of the Bible, and he lapsed sometimes into his own vernacular.
You can use google to find a list of the grammatical changes made between the original 1830 edition of the BOM and subsequent editions, but I'll provide you with a few examples along with a link to a scanned copy of the 1830 edition so you can see for yourself.
Alma 23:7
"...they did not fight against God no more." --1830 edition
"...they did not fight against God any more." --1981 edition
3 Nephi 3:5
"Therefore, I have wrote this epistle, sealing it with mine own hand..." --1830 edition
"Therefore, I have written this epistle, sealing it with mine own hand..." --1981 edition
Alma 43:7
"Now this he done that he might preserve their hatred towards the Nephites." --1830 edition
"Now this he did that he might preserve their hatred towards the Nephites." --1981 edition
These same kinds of mistakes are found throughout the the BOM. The longest list I've been able to find through Google is here. Given the URL, it's obviously an anti-Mormon site, but you can easily check them out by looking up the references here and see it in a scanned copy of the 1830 edition. I've looked up a few on that page, and so far they all check out.
One last thing before moving on. If David Whitmer's account of how the BOM came to be is accurate, then that throws the whole enterprise into question, I would think. If it's true, then the golden plates were not consulted at all during the production of the BOM. They might as well have been left in the hills. How can anybody be sure that the BOM is a translation of those plates? What role did the plates play in anything? It seems to me that Joseph Smith himself ought to have had some questions about it.
Part 3
Sunday, May 31, 2009
The Book of Mormon, 1/18
Today, I am starting a series on the Book of Mormon that I've been putting off since last year. Every time I think about what I'm going to put in this series, I always come up with all kind of background information I want to give first. Sometimes the background information is more lengthy than what I plan to write about the Book of Mormon, which leads me to believe I need to cut back on it.
But I'm going to go ahead and give you the skinny. Since I figure Mormons are going to read this, and since Mormons always want to know why I'm interested in these subjects, I'll give you the skinny on that first. Last July, a good friend of mine (let's call her Kay to protect the innocent and prevent me from having to repeat 'my friend' all the time) wrote me a letter giving me a lengthy version of her testimony and how she became a Mormon. I had known her for about seven months without knowing she was a Mormon. So I became interested initially for that reason. As a result, I read the Book of Mormon, and I took notes as I went along. This series is going to be about those notes I took and what I think about the Book of Mormon.
After a while, my enthusiasm waned, and I never took my notes to blog. My enthusiasm has picked up recently, though, because Kay introduced me to another Mormon girl (let's call her Sierra) back in March. Sierra turned out to be quite fetching, and I took a shine to her, so naturally I became interested in the subject of Mormonism again. Sierra is the one who invited me to her church.
That's the background about me. Now for the background about the Book of Mormon. I figure since non-Mormons are also going to be reading this, and since some of them may not know much about Mormonism or what the Book of Mormon is, I ought to give the skinny on that as well.
Supposedly, the church of Jesus Christ disappeared from the earth entirely once all the original apostles were dead. God restored Christ's church in 1830 through the prophet, Joseph Smith. That's how the LDS Church was born. It's supposedly the only true church of Christ on earth.
Before that happened, Joseph Smith was visited by God himself as well as an angel who led him to a hill where Smith found some gold plates with ancient writing on it. The Book of Mormon was translated from those gold plates. It is a record of some ancient civilizations that lived in America who had migrated here from the middle east. Mormons consider the Book of Mormon to be scripture. It is, as it says on the cover, "another testament of Jesus Christ."
The Book of Mormon is important because it speaks to the credibility of Joseph Smith as a prophet. If the Book of Mormon is not a translation of an ancient American document, then Joseph Smith is a false prophet, and if Joseph Smith is a false prophet, then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (as well as its many off-shoots) is not the true church of Christ restored by God through Joseph Smith.
Although I've read quite a bit since last July, I still consider myself a beginner. It turns out that when it comes to Mormonism, there's a whole lot to know. I've barely scratched the surface. So please think of these blog entries, not as well-researched essays, but as initial impressions.
Part 2
But I'm going to go ahead and give you the skinny. Since I figure Mormons are going to read this, and since Mormons always want to know why I'm interested in these subjects, I'll give you the skinny on that first. Last July, a good friend of mine (let's call her Kay to protect the innocent and prevent me from having to repeat 'my friend' all the time) wrote me a letter giving me a lengthy version of her testimony and how she became a Mormon. I had known her for about seven months without knowing she was a Mormon. So I became interested initially for that reason. As a result, I read the Book of Mormon, and I took notes as I went along. This series is going to be about those notes I took and what I think about the Book of Mormon.
After a while, my enthusiasm waned, and I never took my notes to blog. My enthusiasm has picked up recently, though, because Kay introduced me to another Mormon girl (let's call her Sierra) back in March. Sierra turned out to be quite fetching, and I took a shine to her, so naturally I became interested in the subject of Mormonism again. Sierra is the one who invited me to her church.
That's the background about me. Now for the background about the Book of Mormon. I figure since non-Mormons are also going to be reading this, and since some of them may not know much about Mormonism or what the Book of Mormon is, I ought to give the skinny on that as well.
Supposedly, the church of Jesus Christ disappeared from the earth entirely once all the original apostles were dead. God restored Christ's church in 1830 through the prophet, Joseph Smith. That's how the LDS Church was born. It's supposedly the only true church of Christ on earth.
Before that happened, Joseph Smith was visited by God himself as well as an angel who led him to a hill where Smith found some gold plates with ancient writing on it. The Book of Mormon was translated from those gold plates. It is a record of some ancient civilizations that lived in America who had migrated here from the middle east. Mormons consider the Book of Mormon to be scripture. It is, as it says on the cover, "another testament of Jesus Christ."
The Book of Mormon is important because it speaks to the credibility of Joseph Smith as a prophet. If the Book of Mormon is not a translation of an ancient American document, then Joseph Smith is a false prophet, and if Joseph Smith is a false prophet, then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (as well as its many off-shoots) is not the true church of Christ restored by God through Joseph Smith.
Although I've read quite a bit since last July, I still consider myself a beginner. It turns out that when it comes to Mormonism, there's a whole lot to know. I've barely scratched the surface. So please think of these blog entries, not as well-researched essays, but as initial impressions.
Part 2
Sunday, May 10, 2009
A visit to an LDS church
This morning, I visited an LDS church for my first time. I had wanted to visit one for some time, but I was too chicken. Since the Mormon worldview is so radically different than the Christian worldview, I guess I expected church to be radically different, too. But the church service was a lot closer to what I am used to than going to a Kingdom Hall, although I think Jehovah's Witnesses have a much more Christian worldview than Mormons do.
I don't know if what I saw this morning was typical of an LDS church service since it's Mother's Day, and a lot of churches deviate from the norm on Mother's day. In most churches I've been to, there's usually a pattern. There'll be a time of singing in the beginning followed by a sermon, and then maybe one last song. But today, a few different people got up and said nice things about their mothers, but there was no sermon. We sang a few hymns, but we didn't sing them all at the beginning. We just sang them at various times during the service.
I looked through the hymnal, which you can search by topic, and saw the section on "agency." Under the "agency" topic was a hymn called Know this: That Every Soul is Free. Being a Calvinist, I was most interested in the lyrics. Here they are:
I thumbed through the hymnal and noticed that many of them were dated from as early as the 1700's, which means they could not have been strictly Mormon hymns. And there was nothing unorthodox about any of those hymns. Many of the hymns, including the particularly Mormon hymns, were rich in theological content, unlike a lot of Christian songs today.
This was probably the most rowdy church service I've ever been to. There were a lot of noisy kids, and even the adults were talking to each other a lot. I kind of felt sorry for the individuals who got up and spoke because it didn't look like many people were paying attention to them. It was difficult for me to pay attention because of all the distractions going on around me. I wonder if that is normal for Mormons. I've heard they are into having big families with lots of kids.
Communion was served with water. I had heard about that before, but that was the first time I'd ever seen communion done with water.
No offering plate was passed around or anything like that.
I noticed that almost all the men wore black slacks and white shirts. When I first got there, it seemed like all the men we wearing black slacks and white shirts, which made me stand out like a sore thumb. I was wearing khaki slacks and a coloured shirt. I figured they'd know for sure I wasn't a Mormon, and then they'd want to talk to me. But nobody talked to me. Then I saw a few other men wearing khaki slacks, and that made it all better.
After the service, which lasted maybe an hour at the most, there were other classes. My friend, who had invited me, said there was a class for newcomers where I could ask questions. I decided not to go just because it had already taken a lot of nerve for me to show up at the church to begin with. I am quite shy in person, so it's difficult for me to go to a new church at all, but it's even more difficult for me to go to a new and unusual church!
I don't know if what I saw this morning was typical of an LDS church service since it's Mother's Day, and a lot of churches deviate from the norm on Mother's day. In most churches I've been to, there's usually a pattern. There'll be a time of singing in the beginning followed by a sermon, and then maybe one last song. But today, a few different people got up and said nice things about their mothers, but there was no sermon. We sang a few hymns, but we didn't sing them all at the beginning. We just sang them at various times during the service.
I looked through the hymnal, which you can search by topic, and saw the section on "agency." Under the "agency" topic was a hymn called Know this: That Every Soul is Free. Being a Calvinist, I was most interested in the lyrics. Here they are:
Know this, that every soul is freeClearly anti-Calvinistic, although it's a common misconception that people are "forced" as if against their wills in the Calvinist view. In Calvinism, those who sin do so quite willingly, and those who worship Christ also do so quite willingly.
To choose his life and what he'll be;
For this eternal truth is given:
That God will force no man to heav'n.
He'll call, persuade, direct aright,
And bless with wisdom, love, and light,
In nameless ways be good and kind,
But never force the human mind.
Freedom and reason make us men;
Take these away, what are we then?
Mere animals, and just as well
The beasts may think of heav'n or hell.
May we no more our pow'rs abuse
But ways of truth and goodness choose;
Our God is pleased when we improve
His grace and seek his perfect love.
I thumbed through the hymnal and noticed that many of them were dated from as early as the 1700's, which means they could not have been strictly Mormon hymns. And there was nothing unorthodox about any of those hymns. Many of the hymns, including the particularly Mormon hymns, were rich in theological content, unlike a lot of Christian songs today.
This was probably the most rowdy church service I've ever been to. There were a lot of noisy kids, and even the adults were talking to each other a lot. I kind of felt sorry for the individuals who got up and spoke because it didn't look like many people were paying attention to them. It was difficult for me to pay attention because of all the distractions going on around me. I wonder if that is normal for Mormons. I've heard they are into having big families with lots of kids.
Communion was served with water. I had heard about that before, but that was the first time I'd ever seen communion done with water.
No offering plate was passed around or anything like that.
I noticed that almost all the men wore black slacks and white shirts. When I first got there, it seemed like all the men we wearing black slacks and white shirts, which made me stand out like a sore thumb. I was wearing khaki slacks and a coloured shirt. I figured they'd know for sure I wasn't a Mormon, and then they'd want to talk to me. But nobody talked to me. Then I saw a few other men wearing khaki slacks, and that made it all better.
After the service, which lasted maybe an hour at the most, there were other classes. My friend, who had invited me, said there was a class for newcomers where I could ask questions. I decided not to go just because it had already taken a lot of nerve for me to show up at the church to begin with. I am quite shy in person, so it's difficult for me to go to a new church at all, but it's even more difficult for me to go to a new and unusual church!
Saturday, May 09, 2009
Mormon rejection of creation ex nihilo
Last night, I was reading "Craftsman or Creator" by Paul Copan and William Lane Craig in The New Mormon Challenge edited by Frank Beckwith, Carl Mosser, and Paul Owen. They were responding to a view commonly held by Mormons that God fashioned the universe out of pre-existing material. He created order out of chaos. Matter/energy is eternal. They deny the common Christian view that God created the universe ex nihilo.
In Genesis 1:1, it says that God created the heavens and the earth. The word for create is "bârâ', and Joseph Smith pointed out that it does not mean "creation out of nothing," but to "organize the world out of chaos--chaotic matter." Steven Robinson made a slightly more modest claim. He said that "bârâ'" does not necessarily mean "creation out of nothing."
Robinson is right. The same word, bârâ', is used to describe God's creation of the people of Israel (Isaiah 43:15), and Israel wasn't created out of nothing. So bârâ' doesn't necessarily mean "creation out of nothing," but Craig and Copan argue that it does carry that meaning in Genesis 1:1 and a bunch of other passages.
A couple of proof texts that Craig and Copan use to demonstrate creation ex nihilo are Romans 4:17 and Hebrews 11:3. Romans 4:17b says, "God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist." That seemed to Craig and Copan as an explicit statement of creation ex nihilo, but I don't agree. Nothing exists before it exists, including the nation of Israel. If God created the nation of Israel out of pre-existing people, then it would still be accurate to say he called into being that which did not exist. And that seems to be what the context demands in this case. Quoting the whole verse, it says, "As it is written, 'A father of many nations have I made you [Abraham]' in the sight of him who he believed, even God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist." So when Paul says God calls into being that which does not exist, he seems to be referring to God's creation of many nations from Abraham, not from nothing.
Hebrews 11:3, I think, is an explicit statement of creation ex nihilo. It says, "By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible." Of course a person could argue that this pre-existent chaotic matter was invisible in the sense that you couldn't see it with the naked eye, but I really don't think that's what the author of Hebrews meant. I could be wrong, but I think he meant that what exists was not made out of things that already exist.
Most of the other proof texts that Craig and Copan used were some variation on the fact that God created everything, which presumably would include whatever pre-existing matter out of which he created the universe. Saying that the pre-existent matter was created out of something even more primitive only postpones the problem for those who deny creation ex nihilo.
While I was reading this chapter, another argument occurred to me that I'd like to get your thoughts on. It goes like this:
1. If "creation" always means to craft out of pre-existing material, then God is not the creator of all things.
2. God is the creator of all things.
3. Therefore, "creation" does not always mean to craft out of pre-existing material.
My proof for the first premise is the fact that people create all sorts of things out of pre-existing material. We make cars, radios, plows, chariots, clothes, banana nut bread, and all kinds of groovy things. If creation means to make something out of pre-existing material, then clearly God didn't create everything in that sense. He didn't create banana nut bread; we do.
There are plenty of proof texts to support the second premise. A couple from the Old Testament include Isaiah 44:24, which says, "I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by myself and spreading out the earth all alone," and Nehemiah 9:6, which says, "Thou alone art the LORD. Thou has made the heavens, the heaven of heavens with all their host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them." A couple from the New Testament include John 1:3, which says, "All things came into being by him [Jesus], and apart from him nothing came into being that has come into being," and Colossians 1:16-17, which says, "For by him [Jesus] all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created by him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together."
It seems to me that Paul is trying to be exhaustive in what was created by and for Jesus. He can't be talking about creation out of pre-existing material, or else Paul could not be so exhaustive. After all, we make banana nut bread in that sense, not Jesus. So he must be talking about creation ex nihilo. All these verses which attempt to show the exhaustiveness of what God created must be talking about creation ex nihilo, or else they couldn't be so exhaustive. Lots of creatures create things out of pre-existing material, but only God creates things out of nothing. That's one of the things that makes him unique.
In Genesis 1:1, it says that God created the heavens and the earth. The word for create is "bârâ', and Joseph Smith pointed out that it does not mean "creation out of nothing," but to "organize the world out of chaos--chaotic matter." Steven Robinson made a slightly more modest claim. He said that "bârâ'" does not necessarily mean "creation out of nothing."
Robinson is right. The same word, bârâ', is used to describe God's creation of the people of Israel (Isaiah 43:15), and Israel wasn't created out of nothing. So bârâ' doesn't necessarily mean "creation out of nothing," but Craig and Copan argue that it does carry that meaning in Genesis 1:1 and a bunch of other passages.
A couple of proof texts that Craig and Copan use to demonstrate creation ex nihilo are Romans 4:17 and Hebrews 11:3. Romans 4:17b says, "God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist." That seemed to Craig and Copan as an explicit statement of creation ex nihilo, but I don't agree. Nothing exists before it exists, including the nation of Israel. If God created the nation of Israel out of pre-existing people, then it would still be accurate to say he called into being that which did not exist. And that seems to be what the context demands in this case. Quoting the whole verse, it says, "As it is written, 'A father of many nations have I made you [Abraham]' in the sight of him who he believed, even God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist." So when Paul says God calls into being that which does not exist, he seems to be referring to God's creation of many nations from Abraham, not from nothing.
Hebrews 11:3, I think, is an explicit statement of creation ex nihilo. It says, "By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible." Of course a person could argue that this pre-existent chaotic matter was invisible in the sense that you couldn't see it with the naked eye, but I really don't think that's what the author of Hebrews meant. I could be wrong, but I think he meant that what exists was not made out of things that already exist.
Most of the other proof texts that Craig and Copan used were some variation on the fact that God created everything, which presumably would include whatever pre-existing matter out of which he created the universe. Saying that the pre-existent matter was created out of something even more primitive only postpones the problem for those who deny creation ex nihilo.
While I was reading this chapter, another argument occurred to me that I'd like to get your thoughts on. It goes like this:
1. If "creation" always means to craft out of pre-existing material, then God is not the creator of all things.
2. God is the creator of all things.
3. Therefore, "creation" does not always mean to craft out of pre-existing material.
My proof for the first premise is the fact that people create all sorts of things out of pre-existing material. We make cars, radios, plows, chariots, clothes, banana nut bread, and all kinds of groovy things. If creation means to make something out of pre-existing material, then clearly God didn't create everything in that sense. He didn't create banana nut bread; we do.
There are plenty of proof texts to support the second premise. A couple from the Old Testament include Isaiah 44:24, which says, "I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by myself and spreading out the earth all alone," and Nehemiah 9:6, which says, "Thou alone art the LORD. Thou has made the heavens, the heaven of heavens with all their host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them." A couple from the New Testament include John 1:3, which says, "All things came into being by him [Jesus], and apart from him nothing came into being that has come into being," and Colossians 1:16-17, which says, "For by him [Jesus] all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created by him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together."
It seems to me that Paul is trying to be exhaustive in what was created by and for Jesus. He can't be talking about creation out of pre-existing material, or else Paul could not be so exhaustive. After all, we make banana nut bread in that sense, not Jesus. So he must be talking about creation ex nihilo. All these verses which attempt to show the exhaustiveness of what God created must be talking about creation ex nihilo, or else they couldn't be so exhaustive. Lots of creatures create things out of pre-existing material, but only God creates things out of nothing. That's one of the things that makes him unique.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)