Does the Book of Mormon contradict the Bible?

This is too easy.

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

This is too easy.

---

How so?

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

Which was within the Land of Jerusalem

---

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

Refer to my source.

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

Sorry, I seem to have skipped Message 56. My apologies. Seems you have your names confused. Jacob and Joseph were Nephi's younger brothers, and not the Jacob and Joseph of the OT.

quote:

---

2 Nephi 5
6 Wherefore, it came to pass that I, Nephi, did take my family, and also Zoram and his family, and Sam, mine elder brother and his family, and Jacob and Joseph, my younger brethren...

---

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

---

How hard they must find it, those who take authority as truth, rather than truth as the authority.
-unknown

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

Refer to my source.

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

But this is getting off-topic. In your OP you asked for "examples of the Book of Mormon contradicting the Bible."

---

What could be more on topic than the concept of justification by works? The message of justification by faith is the whole purpose of Scripture from before Abraham onwards, and the BoM contradicts Scripture on that very doctrine. Though the use of any book as Scripture beyond what is recognisably apostolic is impossible for Christians, as we have seen.The BoM came as a more subtle, sotto voce re-statement of the Canons of Trent that assert with official certainty that justification is by works, not by faith, as those troublemakers Luther and Wycliffe had stated. The necessary works in Catholicism always involve an approved human intermediary, and are different in Mormonism, but nevertheless Mormonism stands as diametrically opposed to Christ as any pope does, or as does any mullah who insists on the obligation to observe the five pillars of Islam. It hardly matters how one labels poison, unless it's with 'Poison'. The means of one's justification defines who one is- even whether one ultimately exists.

What's kind of funny is the very verse in Alma that you quoted makes the distinction that they are referring to Jerusalem as a land, rather than City.

quote:

---

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

---

If you think that is a little iffy, here are some other BoM references:

quote:

---

1 Nephi 3
9 And I, Nephi, and my brethren took our journey in the wilderness, with our tents, to go up to the land of Jerusalem.

---

Not only that, but in the very same book (Alma) it is made clear the distinction between "the land", and "the city".

quote:

---

Alma 14
23 that the chief judge over the land of Ammonihah

​

Alma 8
6 So that when he had finished his work at Melek he departed thence, and traveled three days’ journey on the north of the land of Melek; and he came to a city which was called Ammonihah

---

So the distinction between "land of", and "city of" is quite clear throughout the BoM. I am not able to find any biblical references in which "land of Jerusalem" is used. The usage is common amongst modern Biblical scholars though, in light of more recently discovered texts.I am not entirely sure on the credibility of the site, but the distinction between the land of, and city of is made by this Scholar:
Bible-History.com - The "Land of Jerusalem"Also Robert Eisenmann and Michael Wise, in The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered (1993), discuss one document that they have provisionally named "Pseudo-Jeremiah" (scroll 4Q385). The beginning of the damaged text reads as follows:

quote:

---

...Jeremiah the Prophet before the Lord
[...w]ho were taken captive from the land of Jerusalem [Eretz Yerushalayim, column 1, line 2] (p. 58).

---

In their discussion of this text, Eisenmann and Wise elaborate on the significance of the phrase "land of Jerusalem," which they see as an equivalent for Judah (Yehud):

quote:

---

"Another interesting reference is to the 'land of Jerusalem' in Line 2 of Fragment 1. This greatly enhances the sense of historicity of the whole, since Judah or 'Yehud' (the name of the area on coins from the Persian period) by this time consisted of little more than Jerusalem and its immediate environs." (p. 57)

---

What is interesting is this term was not known to Biblical scholars prior to the more recent discovery of these ancient texts. With that in mind, it would make it near impossible for Joseph Smith to have used the phrase in proper context.

quote:

---

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

---

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