Quote:
Originally Posted by Enlil-An
The last paragraph of my last post sums it up.
Little discrepancies don't bother me but whole narratives that completely contradict eachother call the entire gospel(s) into question. There are other things in the gospels which can't be reconciled and the more one sees them the more one starts looking at the New Testament as a very flawed (human) book full of conflicting views of doctrine and history.
It would bother me less if LDS scholars would touch on these things instead of shying away from them. I just don't understand the Church's literalist approach to the Bible.
|
I don't understand your believe that the chruch has a literalist approach to the Bible. The chruch does not believe in inerrancy of the Bible as many other Christians do. They acknowledge that the authors may be mistaken or input opinion. For example, Paul says women shoud not speak in church. I believe that was his opinion, and not doctrine. Yet it is canonized. The church does not pick and choose what parts of the Bible to accept or reject (although I believe the Lord told Smith that the Song of Solomon was not scripturally sound). Since there is no modern doctrine to clarify the events of Christ's birth, we can only come to our own conclusions. So, I have no problem with Luke recounting the story differently that Matthew, because they may have heard and/or understood the story differently.
What about the versions of the First Vision? Some people told the story slightly differently, and sometimes even contradictory, but it was to their understanding. I am sure if you told the story, you might tell it differently too, but that doesn't mean the story is false.
The bigger point is this: God does not give us all the answers. He presents truth through imperfect means, and it is up to us to decide through the witness of the Holy Ghost what truth is. You should not just read the Bible blindly and believe it. You should seek out truth, and confirm it through study and prayer.